What is Theonomy? [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

Dr. Jack Bauer

February 28th 2006, 03:46 AM

What is Theonomy? Well, it's my nickname, and people often ask me what it means. It's a compound of theos and nomos, "God" and "law." Autonomy means "self-rule" or to live according to one's own law. Heteronomy means to live ccording to the law of another. Theonomy means to live according to the law of God.

In the broadest possible sense, all Christians are committed to "Theonomy" to the extent that all Christians think that there are moral rules that God wants us to follow. If you don't believe that, then you have no interest in Christian ethics at all. But the term Theonomy has come to refer to something more narrowly defined. It refers to the position that God's law, revealed in the Bible, is the moral norm for humanity, to the extent that it reveals moral law at all. In short, "Fear God and obey His commandments, for this is the whole duty of humanity" (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

What troubles Christians about Theonomy probably more than anything else are these two things: Firstly, it presumes the continuity of the Old Testament law (subject to fairly careful explanation, something lacking in many critiques of Theonomy), and secondly it does not drive a wedge between ethics and politics, meaning that the ethical duties stipulated by God have bearings on the governments of nations today. The kind of laws that we have today should reflect the standards expressed in biblical law. It is just at that point of understanding Theonomy that many reject it, because it offends some widely held views of ethics in Christian circles, views that I think are best described as "pietistic."

This is not meant to be a long or detailed post, but just a good clear introduction to my view, so I'll try to stick to just the main points.

Theonomy entails the rejection of moral relativism. Moral relativism is the ethical doctrine that morality is relative, either to the individual or to a specific culture. In the individualistic variety, what's morally right for me might not be morally right for you, and what's morally right for you and me might not be right for our neighbour. There just are no trans-personal moral standards, there are just a whole bunch of individuals who construct the moral standards that they live by, and everyone's standards are right for them, even if not right for you. This kind of relativism is called moral subjectivism.

The second kind of moral relativism is called conventionalism. In conventionalism, morality is not determined by the individual, but by collaboration. A group of people put their heads together and simply agree to buy themselves by a set of rules, and they are correct, not because of what anyone outside the group might think of those rules, but just because this is what they have agreed to. For example, if, as a society, we agree that any Asian people who come to our country will be shot on sight, then this is morally okay, for no other reason than the fact that we agreed to it. If some ancient near Eastern societies live by a convention whereby they sacrificed their children to Molech, then so be it, this is just how their culture decided to live. Likewise, if in ancient Israelite society that God made a deal with them whereby they would treat sodomy as wicked, they required thieves to pay restitution, and it was mandatory to put murderers to death, all on moral grounds, then has no necessary implications for us, since it was a long time ago, in a culture other than our own. Since God was not speaking to us when he said those things, what was morally true in that context might not be morally true in ours.

Theonomy rejects moral relativism. This in itself is not a radical, since most Christians, when asked, will say that they too reject moral relativism. What to make theonomy radical is not that it claims to reject moral relativism, but the fact that it actually does so, even at the risk of making it wildly unpopular.

Here's an example. Popular ethicist/apologist Norman Geisler for (rightly) rejects “Antinomianism,” where there are no “objective moral laws.” [1] An objective moral law is, of course, one that is not sujective, that is, it is independent of what people believe about it, as it stands outside of trend, culture and so forth. It is objectively true that some things are moral true, and even if moral practices change, that moral fact will not. He also gives his criteria of the Christian system of ethics: It is based on God's will, it is absolute, it is based on God's revelation, it is prescriptive and it is deontological (that is, duty-based). [2] The theonomic reader agrees with all of these, and sees that Theonomy has just been described. However, when it comes to Theonomy, Geisler says (as one of his responses) that “not all of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament,” and also “nowhere does the New Testament state, as does the Old Testament, that capital punishment should be given for adultery.” [3] But what happened to “absolute” ethics that are “prescriptive” and based on revelation? It seems Geisler wants to use the terminology of fidelity to revealed ethics given by an immutable God, yet when his mind his on other matters, he reveals his own unwillingness to accept the challenge of consistency.

When we say that we believe that morality is grounded in truth, that is, in fact, that it is objective, and that it is prescriptive, revealing God's will, we've said a lot, and it can be difficult to stick to our guns. Geisler did not stick to his guns. This view of ethics means that we cannot presume that unless a moral requirement is repeated, it must have disappeared. Aside from being a fairly obvious argument from silence, it supposes that moral facts are not so objective after all, that what is morally required yesterday can be either not morally required - or perhaps evenmorally forbidden - today.

This anti-objectivist and culturally relative view of morality has some obviously unacceptable implications for Christians. For example, bestiality, humans having sex with animals, or kidnapping for that matter, are sins that are not expressly forbidden anywhere in the New Testament. Sure, we could try to say "ah, but sexual immorality is forbidden, and bestiality is sexually immoral." Who says it is sexually immoral? Oh that's right, that's in the Old Testament too.

The moral continuity of the Old Testament rears its head throughout the New Testament. The Apostle Paul assumes that one purpose of the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer will be that “the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us” (Rom 8:4). He calls the law “holy, righteous and good” (Rom 7:12), and is able to happily equate “sin” with any violation of the law (Rom 6:15). While passages like these are seen as confirmation of the Theonomic thesis, they are also seen as unnecessary in order to establish Theonomy. As Bahnsen urges, “one cannot rightly infer an abrogation of God’s eternal, holy law from silence.” Unless and until we are given clear grounds for believing that a moral command no longer applies, so the theonomic argument goes, we ought to assume that it remains. This is all the more true given what Jesus says directly about the law. In Matthew 5 Jesus is as explicit as language will permit that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it absolutely, and he adds, to prevent any misconception that this is just a veiled way of talking about another kind of abolition (even though that would make the contrast meaningless), that those who keep the law and teach others to do so will be great in the kingdom, but those who break it and teach others to do so will be the least!

I'll deal with the objections that people hear at TWeb raise, and I'll offer further explanation as the thread progresses, in response to questions that I'm sure will come. I'll also be saying some things about the political implications of Theonomy. But for now, I do want to comment on one gut reaction that some people might be tempted to give into: This sounds like a bunch of Pharisee talk!

But does it really? Rushdoony explains that the Pharisees with whom Jesus clashed were in reality “lawbreakers.” [4] He cites as evidence Matthew 7:6-8, noting that the Pharisees had “lay aside” the commandments of God in exchange for human traditions. He quotes with approval Alexander’s comment that the “religious teachers” of Jesus’ day were “corrupting the law by their unauthorized additions.” [5] Not only this, but we might note that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for overlooking the “weightier matters” of the law altogether (Matt 23:23). While Jesus urges the people to obey the teachers of the law and the Pharisees and “do everything they tell you” when they teach the law of Moses, Jesus warns, “But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (Matt 23:2-4). Contrary to misconception, Bahnsen points out, “the problem with the Pharisees is that they did not observe the Older Testamental law!” [6] Obedience should never be confused with legalism.

So there's a start. There will be plenty more to come I'm sure, but let's see if the subject gets any takers.
Notes:

1. Norman Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 33.
2. ibid., 22-24.
3. Ibid., 203.
4. Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), 707.
5. Joseph Addison Alexander, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, [1864]), 185, cited in Rushdoony, Institutes, 707.
6. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 91.

dizzle

February 28th 2006, 08:04 AM

Hello theonomy, you know I am glad you started this thread as you know I am highly sympathetic to your view and it will give me a chance to think and talk on it a bit more. However, I am finding I have a large philosophical disagreement with what appears to be a foundational premise (and this is where I think theonomy must be defeated IF it is to be defeated - IOW the emotional belly-aching argument of how SHOCKED people are to think that adultery could be a capital offense is bankrupt). I know quite a bit about relativism, and I think what you described as moral relativism isn't moral relativism at all. I draw as my support and justification the work of Christian philosopher Francis Beckwith and ethical commentator Greg Koukl in their book Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air.

First let me affirm something about relativism that you said very well, and that I would affirm (except perhaps for one part which I think you mean in a different way than I do) - I bolded the sentence I really thought was well done:

Moral relativism is the ethical doctrine that morality is relative, either to the individual or to a specific culture. In the individualistic variety, what's morally right for me might not be morally right for you, and what's morally right for you and me might not be right for our neighbour. There just are no trans-personal moral standards, there are just a whole bunch of individuals who construct the moral standards that they live by, and everyone's standards are right for them, even if not right for you. This kind of relativism is called moral subjectivism.

That bolded statement is relativism. Moral relativism is about relative individuals. However, in your follow-up paragraph you seem to go beyond what is really true moral relativism:

The second kind of moral relativism is called conventionalism. In conventionalism, morality is not determined by the individual, but by collaboration. A group of people put their heads together and simply agree to buy themselves by a set of rules, and they are correct, not because of what anyone outside the group might think of those rules, but just because this is what they have agreed to. For example, if, as a society, we agree that any Asian people who come to our country will be shot on sight, then this is morally okay, for no other reason than the fact that we agreed to it. If some ancient near Eastern societies live by a convention whereby they sacrificed their children to Molech, then so be it, this is just how their culture decided to live. Likewise, if in ancient Israelite society that God made a deal with them whereby they would treat sodomy as wicked, they required thieves to pay restitution, and it was mandatory to put murderers to death, all on moral grounds, then has no necessary implications for us, since it was a long time ago, in a culture other than our own. Since God was not speaking to us when he said those things, what was morally true in that context might not be morally true in ours.

This paragraph starts very well - and I reject conventionalsim. However your conclusory sentence seems to imply that this conclusion is rejected simply by a rejection of conventionalsim. That is not so.

This is where a proper definition of moral relativism is crucial - and where most Christians are highly confused about what Biblical absolutism is. Biblical absolutism implies an absolute set of hierarchal standards which has an absolute weight but that the ethical situation must be weighed in order to apply those standards which would then apply equally to every individual in the same ethical situation.

I am raising a situation as an example for you to consider Theonomy (and I do not wish to debate it with others who disagree that this is a valid example as it gets too contentious and will distract this thread - I am bringing it to Theonomy as IIRC he agrees with me on this point). Lying is wrong. Is it always wrong? No. The Bible gives two situations in fact where it was the right thing to do, and to tell the truth would have been wrong. (though in fairness I may be starting to look at that issue with a bit more nuance but I don't think the conclusion would be different for these purposes). It depended on the situation. BUT all people in that particular situation would have the some moral imperative.

Starting from this ground, it is possible, while still rejecting relativism, and holding to Biblical absolutism, to reject the civil laws of the OT as being applicable to us today as we are in different situations from which to evaluate the moral hierarchy.

Let's take for example adultery. We have to examine why it was capital offense, and I do think there were specific cultural and time-bound reasons why it was so, and I am not so sure they are applicable today.

So - I don't think the argument via rejection of moral relativism is as strong as was presented in your OP.

Dr. Jack Bauer

February 28th 2006, 06:13 PM

This is where a proper definition of moral relativism is crucial - and where most Christians are highly confused about what Biblical absolutism is. Biblical absolutism implies an absolute set of hierarchal standards which has an absolute weight but that the ethical situation must be weighed in order to apply those standards which would then apply equally to every individual in the same ethical situation.Yes I agree with this.
I am raising a situation as an example for you to consider Theonomy (and I do not wish to debate it with others who disagree that this is a valid example as it gets too contentious and will distract this thread - I am bringing it to Theonomy as IIRC he agrees with me on this point). Lying is wrong. Is it always wrong? No. The Bible gives two situations in fact where it was the right thing to do, and to tell the truth would have been wrong. (though in fairness I may be starting to look at that issue with a bit more nuance but I don't think the conclusion would be different for these purposes). It depended on the situation. BUT all people in that particular situation would have the some moral imperative.Again I fully agree. I think we need to understand biblical moral rules "sensibly" for want of a better word. I think that if God says "don't steal" for example, we just ought to accept certain reasonable qualifications (e.g. if someone is going to shoot somebody else, then of course you can take his gun). It does mean that we have to process the commandments and not take them simply "raw," but filter them through our common sensulator (I copyright that word), but I'm not sure that we disagree.
Starting from this ground, it is possible, while still rejecting relativism, and holding to Biblical absolutism, to reject the civil laws of the OT as being applicable to us today as we are in different situations from which to evaluate the moral hierarchy.I won't go into the issue of a "moral hierarchy," but let's takew what you've said here and see if it leads towards or away from my position. OK, I agree that what we should say, if we're spelling eveything out a little more fully, that what commandment really means is "when you are in circumstances that are relevant similar to this circumstance, do X." Firstly, this cannot lead to the presumption of discontinuity I was opposing in my OP. But secondly, we'd see pretty quickly on a case by case basis that this really leads to Theonomy. For example, "when in circumstances relevantly similar to this one here, the thief is to pay X proportion of restitution." What conditions must be met before we can say that the situation is reloevantly similar? Well, not many as far as I can tell, and certainly none that cannot be easily met in our own culture. In other words, the principle is such that it is not vacuously universally binding (that is, universally binding, but only when circumstances arise that will never actuall arise other than in this cultural context), but it actually does apply cross culturally between then and now.
Let's take for example adultery. We have to examine why it was capital offense, and I do think there were specific cultural and time-bound reasons why it was so, and I am not so sure they are applicable today.

So - I don't think the argument via rejection of moral relativism is as strong as was presented in your OP.Well I think it carries significant weight against any view that presumes discontinuity, which is not what you're doing. And I think that even when your rejoinder is taken into account, proper rejection of cultural relativism still strongly leads on in the direction of Theonomy.

I'm curious now as to what you'd say about the case of adultery.

Spiritus Naturae

February 28th 2006, 06:23 PM

dizzle

February 28th 2006, 06:34 PM

Theonomy I know you are going to kick me but for the tenth time I lost your paper (but in my defense my last laptop committed suicide) and I would like it again.

I have school tonight and tomorrow, but I will let you know what I was thinking on the adultery issue and my comments as to your response.

So as to be clear, which I am fairly certain already, but sometimes whoosh, things go over my head - you do believe that aldutery in the economy of God is still a capital moral offense? (you know I don't have a knee-jerk emotional reaction against that position I just want to make sure I am not assuming anything)

Dr. Jack Bauer

February 28th 2006, 06:38 PM

Theonomy I know you are going to kick me but for the tenth time I lost your paper (but in my defense my last laptop committed suicide) and I would like it again.No problem, that will be $29.95.

OK, I'll just email it.
So as to be clear, which I am fairly certain already, but sometimes whoosh, things go over my head - you do believe that aldutery in the economy of God is still a capital moral offense? (you know I don't have a knee-jerk emotional reaction against that position I just want to make sure I am not assuming anything)At present I can find no biblical warrant for saying otherwise (my safe answer). Having said that, a lot of conditions must be met (not just conditions regarding the establishment of guilt), and it is certainly not mandatory, in fact I think it should not happen.

dizzle

February 28th 2006, 06:39 PM

At present I can find no biblical warrant for saying otherwise (my safe answer). Having said that, a lot of conditions must be met (not just conditions regarding the establishment of guilt), and it is certainly not mandatory, in fact I think it should not happen.

I am glad I just did not assume. You totally lost me there - really. I have no idea what that means. Can you please explicate?

dizzle

February 28th 2006, 06:41 PM

I just have to say that I learned quite a bit about Theonomy from your paper you emailed to me some time ago. I used to be one of those shrill opponents of the notion of Theonomy and like most my objections were purely emotional and not entirely Scriptural in nature.

I shall be browsing this post with great interest and will post any questions that may arise for me.

Keep up the good work, Theonomy. :thumb:

I agree with your reaction as that would have been mine if I already wasn't well done the evil road of preterism when I encountered it. But I know my mindset before then, and I would have done likewise. I think it is the experience of coming to believe something so obviously ridiculous (my former mindset) as preterism has led me to be a more careful examiner of "that's just ludicrous" dismissals especially when obvious non-loons (well perhaps he is a bit looney) hold it.

Spiritus Naturae

February 28th 2006, 07:22 PM

I agree with your reaction as that would have been mine if I already wasn't well done the evil road of preterism when I encountered it. But I know my mindset before then, and I would have done likewise. I think it is the experience of coming to believe something so obviously ridiculous (my former mindset) as preterism has led me to be a more careful examiner of "that's just ludicrous" dismissals especially when obvious non-loons (well perhaps he is a bit looney) hold it.
By the way, I just recently printed out Bahnsen's "By This Standard" and will start chipping away at it tonight. A good resource in the way of learning Theonomy, I assume? :huh:

dizzle

February 28th 2006, 07:25 PM

Yes I have heard it is one of THE books to read. DeMar's "Ruler of Nations" is very good, I have it and have read it.

Little Shepherd

February 28th 2006, 08:26 PM

Arnold

February 28th 2006, 09:03 PM

Theonomy:

So does your theonomy mean fully keeping the Mosaic Law or selectively keeping the Mosaic Law? And what are the retributions for not?

Ryokan

February 28th 2006, 10:52 PM

What is Theonomy? Well, it's my nickname, and people often ask me what it means. It's a compound of theos and nomos, "God" and "law." Autonomy means "self-rule" or to live according to one's own law. Heteronomy means to live ccording to the law of another. Theonomy means to live according to the law of God. Okay.

In the broadest possible sense, all Christians are committed to "Theonomy" to the extent that all Christians think that there are moral rules that God wants us to follow. If you don't believe that, then you have no interest in Christian ethics at all. But the term Theonomy has come to refer to something more narrowly defined. It refers to the position that God's law, revealed in the Bible, is the moral norm for humanity, to the extent that it reveals moral law at all. In short, "Fear God and obey His commandments, for this is the whole duty of humanity" (Ecclesiastes 12:13).Okay.

What troubles Christians about Theonomy probably more than anything else are these two things: Firstly, it presumes the continuity of the Old Testament law (subject to fairly careful explanation, something lacking in many critiques of Theonomy), and secondly it does not drive a wedge between ethics and politics, meaning that the ethical duties stipulated by God have bearings on the governments of nations today. The kind of laws that we have today should reflect the standards expressed in biblical law. It is just at that point of understanding Theonomy that many reject it, because it offends some widely held views of ethics in Christian circles, views that I think are best described as "pietistic."Which is where we have problems. I don't agree we should be held to old testament law, at least those laws that regard the governance of ancient Israel/Judah or those laws that regard to the maintenance of Hebrew cultural norms.

This is not meant to be a long or detailed post, but just a good clear introduction to my view, so I'll try to stick to just the main points.

Theonomy entails the rejection of moral relativism. Moral relativism is the ethical doctrine that morality is relative, either to the individual or to a specific culture. In the individualistic variety, what's morally right for me might not be morally right for you, and what's morally right for you and me might not be right for our neighbour. There just are no trans-personal moral standards, there are just a whole bunch of individuals who construct the moral standards that they live by, and everyone's standards are right for them, even if not right for you. This kind of relativism is called moral subjectivism.

The second kind of moral relativism is called conventionalism. In conventionalism, morality is not determined by the individual, but by collaboration. A group of people put their heads together and simply agree to buy themselves by a set of rules, and they are correct, not because of what anyone outside the group might think of those rules, but just because this is what they have agreed to. For example, if, as a society, we agree that any Asian people who come to our country will be shot on sight, then this is morally okay, for no other reason than the fact that we agreed to it. If some ancient near Eastern societies live by a convention whereby they sacrificed their children to Molech, then so be it, this is just how their culture decided to live. Likewise, if in ancient Israelite society that God made a deal with them whereby they would treat sodomy as wicked, they required thieves to pay restitution, and it was mandatory to put murderers to death, all on moral grounds, then has no necessary implications for us, since it was a long time ago, in a culture other than our own. Since God was not speaking to us when he said those things, what was morally true in that context might not be morally true in ours. We all do reject these things, as you momentarily point out.

Theonomy rejects moral relativism. This in itself is not a radical, since most Christians, when asked, will say that they too reject moral relativism. What to make theonomy radical is not that it claims to reject moral relativism, but the fact that it actually does so, even at the risk of making it wildly unpopular. How so? Is finding, say, adultery, objectively morally wrong but outside the proper sphere of governmental oversight "moral relativism? What about thinking that even if it is in that realm, death is not a reasonable punishment? Or a reasonable punishment in today's reality?

Here's an example. Popular ethicist/apologist Norman Geisler for (rightly) rejects “Antinomianism,” where there are no “objective moral laws.” [1] An objective moral law is, of course, one that is not sujective, that is, it is independent of what people believe about it, as it stands outside of trend, culture and so forth. It is objectively true that some things are moral true, and even if moral practices change, that moral fact will not. He also gives his criteria of the Christian system of ethics: It is based on God's will, it is absolute, it is based on God's revelation, it is prescriptive and it is deontological (that is, duty-based). [2] The theonomic reader agrees with all of these, and sees that Theonomy has just been described. However, when it comes to Theonomy, Geisler says (as one of his responses) that “not all of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament,” and also “nowhere does the New Testament state, as does the Old Testament, that capital punishment should be given for adultery.” [3] But what happened to “absolute” ethics that are “prescriptive” and based on revelation? It seems Geisler wants to use the terminology of fidelity to revealed ethics given by an immutable God, yet when his mind his on other matters, he reveals his own unwillingness to accept the challenge of consistency. Well, if you are not an inerrantist, this is not problematic. Additionally, what is moral is ultimately determined by God. It is both consistent and legitimate for him to use one moral code, applicable at one time, for one people, and another at another time. bopth are absolute, just based on certain preconditions.

When we say that we believe that morality is grounded in truth, that is, in fact, that it is objective, and that it is prescriptive, revealing God's will, we've said a lot, and it can be difficult to stick to our guns. Geisler did not stick to his guns. This view of ethics means that we cannot presume that unless a moral requirement is repeated, it must have disappeared. Aside from being a fairly obvious argument from silence, it supposes that moral facts are not so objective after all, that what is morally required yesterday can be either not morally required - or perhaps evenmorally forbidden - today.

This anti-objectivist and culturally relative view of morality has some obviously unacceptable implications for Christians. For example, bestiality, humans having sex with animals, or kidnapping for that matter, are sins that are not expressly forbidden anywhere in the New Testament. Sure, we could try to say "ah, but sexual immorality is forbidden, and bestiality is sexually immoral." Who says it is sexually immoral? Oh that's right, that's in the Old Testament too.

The moral continuity of the Old Testament rears its head throughout the New Testament. The Apostle Paul assumes that one purpose of the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer will be that “the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us” (Rom 8:4). He calls the law “holy, righteous and good” (Rom 7:12), and is able to happily equate “sin” with any violation of the law (Rom 6:15). While passages like these are seen as confirmation of the Theonomic thesis, they are also seen as unnecessary in order to establish Theonomy. As Bahnsen urges, “one cannot rightly infer an abrogation of God’s eternal, holy law from silence.” Unless and until we are given clear grounds for believing that a moral command no longer applies, so the theonomic argument goes, we ought to assume that it remains. This is all the more true given what Jesus says directly about the law. In Matthew 5 Jesus is as explicit as language will permit that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it absolutely, and he adds, to prevent any misconception that this is just a veiled way of talking about another kind of abolition (even though that would make the contrast meaningless), that those who keep the law and teach others to do so will be great in the kingdom, but those who break it and teach others to do so will be the least!

I'll deal with the objections that people hear at TWeb raise, and I'll offer further explanation as the thread progresses, in response to questions that I'm sure will come. I'll also be saying some things about the political implications of Theonomy. But for now, I do want to comment on one gut reaction that some people might be tempted to give into: This sounds like a bunch of Pharisee talk!

But does it really? Rushdoony explains that the Pharisees with whom Jesus clashed were in reality “lawbreakers.” [4] He cites as evidence Matthew 7:6-8, noting that the Pharisees had “lay aside” the commandments of God in exchange for human traditions. He quotes with approval Alexander’s comment that the “religious teachers” of Jesus’ day were “corrupting the law by their unauthorized additions.” [5] Not only this, but we might note that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for overlooking the “weightier matters” of the law altogether (Matt 23:23). While Jesus urges the people to obey the teachers of the law and the Pharisees and “do everything they tell you” when they teach the law of Moses, Jesus warns, “But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach” (Matt 23:2-4). Contrary to misconception, Bahnsen points out, “the problem with the Pharisees is that they did not observe the Older Testamental law!” [6] Obedience should never be confused with legalism.

So there's a start. There will be plenty more to come I'm sure, but let's see if the subject gets any takers.
Notes:

1. Norman Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 33.
2. ibid., 22-24.
3. Ibid., 203.
4. Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), 707.
5. Joseph Addison Alexander, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, [1864]), 185, cited in Rushdoony, Institutes, 707.
6. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 91.Okay.

My basic objections are :
1. Any functional theonomy is dependant on the group in power accurately interpretting GOds law. And given the way men disagree about that..... How are we to come to a decision that isn't, by theonomic definition of the term, conventionalism? Either the will of the masses, or the will of the men in power, not God's will, is likely to be done.
2. It presupposes it is the proper role of government to enforce moral law as an end unto itself.
3. It does not take into account the possibility, assuming ancient Israel's laws are divinely mandated, they were divinely mandated for Israel alone as a legal system.
4. it does not explain how it would be installed over a pluralistic society.

Ryokan

February 28th 2006, 10:53 PM

Let's take for example adultery. We have to examine why it was capital offense, and I do think there were specific cultural and time-bound reasons why it was so, and I am not so sure they are applicable today.

This is a good point. 3000 years ago, society was different, and much less secure in its foundations.

dizzle

February 28th 2006, 11:23 PM

Ryokan

February 28th 2006, 11:38 PM

Ryokan I hope you don't mind a minor side-trail and some personal questions. You can tell me to buzz off if you like. My motivation is not to argue, but like with Theonomy, just to know accurately where you are coming from. Sounds great. What is your errantist view? There are many different types - for instance, our SoF here at the site does not require inerrancy. It strongly implies it, but there are forms of errancy that could exist under our SoF and in fact I think a couple of our mods are not inerrantists (I never made an issue out of it with them so I don't know for sure). Not sure right now. The Bible, as it exists, has some geogrphical and historical irregularities that I have to dismiss. For instance, no way Abraham had camels. When he was kicking it, they were not domesticated. So, to the extent of that sort of thing, I am for certain errant. But... Outside of that, I waffle around. i am reading alot, but have yet to come down on anything. Not a satisfying answer for you, I am sure, but honest. I think their is a strong possibility Leviticus represents an account of Judahs legal code for the most part, not God's moral mandates for all humanity, and a guide for all legal systems. Also, a bit more personal, is your wife an inerrantist? I am curious only because I know she was important in bringing you to faith so I am just curious as to the "doctrinal atmosphere" so to speak of your daily life. You can tell me it is none of my business or you prefer not to discuss.Well, I am not one to volunteer personal stuff, but since my wife has given me permission to "say what I like in geek land :wink: " she was raised Southern Baptist, and has a fairly literal interpretation, but is not to concerned with it. Praxis concerns her. Theology, not so much. Largely because most inerrantist, errantist, Calvinist, Arminians, etc. believe you should behave in basically the same way. So, she doesn't see the point. I was raised Catholic, specifically educated by the very liberal Jesuits, so that informs my views, too. I don't know where I am right now. I am trying to find my place, but its a process. Prayer, thought, and time.:shrug:

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 1st 2006, 05:50 AM

I am glad I just did not assume. You totally lost me there - really. I have no idea what that means. Can you please explicate?Well, I mean that I would say that I find that conclusion - that the penalty may still apply - to be such that Scripture offers no reason to reject it. I assume the confusion arises from what I said next.

The conditions I'm talking about are that both participants are punished or none at all, any witnesses must be subject to the criterion that if they falsify their testinony and are found out, the face the penalty they were seeking to have imposed on the offender, and that - and this is what a lot of people miss - where there is a living identifiable victim, he/she, so far as I can tell, has the power of forgiveness. For example, if my wife - heaven forbid - cheated on me, I am utterly convinced that I would forgive her. This of course means that the other party would not suffer the penalty either.

That is why I think it should not happen, since I think it is right to forgive one another. I don't think this is a New Testament innovation either.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 1st 2006, 05:52 AM

By the way, I just recently printed out Bahnsen's "By This Standard" and will start chipping away at it tonight. A good resource in the way of learning Theonomy, I assume? :huh:It is good. An even better one is his No Other Standard, available at www.freebooks.com (http://www.freebooks.com). Prior to reading that book, I thought "surely this crazy view has been defeated by someone." After reading it, I was stunned into silence.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 1st 2006, 05:54 AM

So does your theonomy mean fully keeping the Mosaic Law or selectively keeping the Mosaic Law?That dichotomy is such that no correct answer can be supplied.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 1st 2006, 06:19 AM

Which is where we have problems. I don't agree we should be held to old testament law, at least those laws that regard the governance of ancient Israel/Judah or those laws that regard to the maintenance of Hebrew cultural norms.Well, it would be a mistake to characterise Theonomy as a very simplistic case of direct application (e.g. some laws spoke about railings arpound rooftops, so we should have railings around rooftops). Like all other Christian students of Old Testament ethics, the theonomist will employ the principle of general equity, and be willing to "translate" law into modern terms.
How so? Is finding, say, adultery, objectively morally wrong but outside the proper sphere of governmental oversight "moral relativism? What about thinking that even if it is in that realm, death is not a reasonable punishment? Or a reasonable punishment in today's reality?It is certainly morally relativistic to say that reality changes in such a way that while at one time it was morally appropriate to have the death penalty, reality is now such that this would not be morally appropriate. But no, the fact that a person temporarily or selectively applies morla relativism to just a few cases, I suppose, doesn't mean that they generally hold to moral relativism. But what kinds of action warrant social responses to them just is a moral judgement.
Well, if you are not an inerrantist, this is not problematic. Additionally, what is moral is ultimately determined by God. It is both consistent and legitimate for him to use one moral code, applicable at one time, for one people, and another at another time. bopth are absolute, just based on certain preconditions.The problem isn't merely one of inerrantism. The problem is that Geisler says that morality is objective and divine grounded, and he also says - or so it looks to me - that it changes.

This is not a consistent position to hold, is the point I was making. Now, if you are an errantist - that is - such an inerrantist that you believe, for example, that the commands we have in the Bbile were really never given, then that's a level of textual skepticism so great that biblical ethics can't really be something that you'd hope will produce reliable conclusions at all.

If, as you say above, God Himself issues different moral codes at different times that actually conflict with one another, then yes this is definitely moral relativism. Either that or you'd have to hold that the different codes did not reflect morality.
My basic objections are :
1. Any functional theonomy is dependant on the group in power accurately interpretting GOds law. And given the way men disagree about that..... How are we to come to a decision that isn't, by theonomic definition of the term, conventionalism? Either the will of the masses, or the will of the men in power, not God's will, is likely to be done.That's not really an objection to Theonomy, unless you think theonomy entails a dictatorship of a few. Since it doesn't, the objection doesn't apply.

Theonomy does not advocate a form of government where the powerful determine the law independent of those leaders having the support of the people. Rather, Theonomy is a view about which laws peole should support. This is entirely concistent with democratically elected leaderhip.
2. It presupposes it is the proper role of government to enforce moral law as an end unto itself.I think this is not only false, but obviously so - at least if it is not qualified. And once it is qualified, it is unproblematic. A huge amount of moral law should not be legislated on, simply because the law is powerless to affect so many things - lust, greed, hate, bad attitudes, mean spiritedness, malice etc. So it's clearly false that biblical law involves making these things the domain of the state. So we have to qualify it to say that the state should enforce some of the moral law. But since probably all of us agree with that already, as a fact initself this is true but uproblematic.
3. It does not take into account the possibility, assuming ancient Israel's laws are divinely mandated, they were divinely mandated for Israel alone as a legal system.This is to say that Theonomy doesn't take into acount the possibility that Theonomy is false. I've certainly taken that possibility inot account, and I have rejected it. It also accepts some important differences between Israel and other nations, I just haven't spelt all that out yet, but it is directly and reptitively dealt with in the literature on Theonomy.
4. it does not explain how it would be installed over a pluralistic society.I'll say more about this one in later posts.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 1st 2006, 07:08 AM

I was thinking about "what is Theonomy" just this weekend when you and DDW were talking about it in PalTalk. After reading your post, I have a question and a comment.

Q: How do you tell the difference between a moral command and one that's simply cultural? I assume adultery and committing murder are moral commands. However, what about circumcision and dietary laws? As I understand it, commands to follow these were, in fact, part of the law itself. Yet in the New Testament, not only is it not required, but it is specifically said that we can eat the unclean foods, and that we don't require physical circumcision anymore. Even with theonomy's view of the law of God as absolute and eternal, it still seems there are many laws that we don't have to obey.That, as I see it, is the theonomist's main task, and hence it's something I can't satisfactoraly address in one post.

The answer is more or less the same answer to any complex hermeneutical issue: We figure these things out by seriously investing time in studying the law itself and what Scripture says about itself.

The short answer, just to outline what I think would be an adequate reply, is to say that some of the law is only vacuously binding, since built into some of the law is a stipulated limitation that the said commands are covenant specific or nation specific. For example Israelites are told not to eat certain things, but they are permitted to sell them to foreigners living in the community. The other part of the answer is one that is already familiar to biblical ethics, namely that the application of the law changes in some occasions simply due to the circumstances of salvation history. For example we do require a sacrifice for sin, but our sacrifice is Christ and any further act would be redundant. Likewise circumcision is typological of circumcision of the heart by the Spirit, something all regenerate persons have had, but was signified by the token of circumcision from Abraham until the promised seed.
C: As I was thinking about this a few weeks ago, I had a particular thought about the law and why we follow the laws that we do and not the ones that we don't. As far as I can figure, the Old Testament law had the purpose of directing the Jews in the running of a nation. The New Testament, on the other hand, directs Christians to obey the laws of the land except where they conflict with devotion to God. It is not assumed that Christians will occupy and govern their own nation(s), but rather that they will be subject to other, often unchristian, governments. Rather than a system of laws and punishments, we have a system of guidelines that allow us to operate within, yet stand apart from, whatever governing system we find ourselves under.That's right, the New Testament doesn't tell us what laws a nation should have, as it speaks to people living under other nations. As such it tells us how to live in that situation. Much more explicit principles of law are spelt out in the Old Testament.
As for punishments, we are likewise only allowed to prosecute people to the extent that the legal system we are under allows. If we were to be Christians in a country operating under the Mosaic Law, then we could prosecute adulterers with the death penalty. However, under current US laws, we can't even give them a smack on the wrist. That doesn't make adultery right; it simply means we're bound by our country's laws and can't "go vigilante" unless the laws are requiring us to do something that goes against God.Amen. That's really important to say, as a lot of people, when they hear of the idea of Theonomy (and I'm speaking purely anecdotally now), seem to conjure up images of mobs roving around lynching people at will. Theonomy does not endorse private justice, revolution against the state or any such thing.

Ryokan

March 1st 2006, 08:44 AM

Well, it would be a mistake to characterise Theonomy as a very simplistic case of direct application (e.g. some laws spoke about railings arpound rooftops, so we should have railings around rooftops). Like all other Christian students of Old Testament ethics, the theonomist will employ the principle of general equity, and be willing to "translate" law into modern terms. Which automatically turns it into "theocracy", not theonomy. When we have to depend on men to interpret and shape the laws, Theonomy, we are talking not about a land ruled by GOd, but a land ruled by men pretendign to be God. Its Iran with a cross.
It is certainly morally relativistic to say that reality changes in such a way that while at one time it was morally appropriate to have the death penalty, reality is now such that this would not be morally appropriate. But no, the fact that a person temporarily or selectively applies morla relativism to just a few cases, I suppose, doesn't mean that they generally hold to moral relativism. But what kinds of action warrant social responses to them just is a moral judgement. Its not relative, though. its absolute, because at the times in question, it was absolutely rgiht, and now its absolutely wrong, and the absolute law giver, GOd, ordained it. Thats not relative. Otherwise, saying the kosher laws are no longer in force is relativity too.
The problem isn't merely one of inerrantism. The problem is that Geisler says that morality is objective and divine grounded, and he also says - or so it looks to me - that it changes. I don't think that is what he is saying. What he is saying GOd created moral laws that are in effect at different times, based on his covenants with his people. Thats not relativsim.

This is not a consistent position to hold, is the point I was making. Now, if you are an errantist - that is - such an inerrantist that you believe, for example, that the commands we have in the Bbile were really never given, then that's a level of textual skepticism so great that biblical ethics can't really be something that you'd hope will produce reliable conclusions at all. I don't know, i am simply pointing out the bible is interpretted in various ways. I am a student at the beginning. And it is far from certain, to alot of Christians, that every law laid out in the early parts of the Bible is God's law. Its also worth noting while God may hold to the morality set out in Leviticus, the Hebrews codes for enforcing it may in no way be his. Since the ancient Hebrews laws, in many ways, closely resemble the laws of its neighbors in the region, and appear influenced by them, I think that isn't an untenable assumption, though, as I said, I don't know if I hold it.

If, as you say above, God Himself issues different moral codes at different times that actually conflict with one another, then yes this is definitely moral relativism. Either that or you'd have to hold that the different codes did not reflect morality. No. The laws of morality, under such a system, wouldn't have changed at all. Their would just be a different moral code, designed by the objective law giver, for the two different circumstances. Since men aren't changing the law, and since law was such at creation, its not changing, one is just going out of effect and the other into effect.
That's not really an objection to Theonomy, unless you think theonomy entails a dictatorship of a few. Since it doesn't, the objection doesn't apply.
It involves someone calling the shots though, theonomy. Someone who is a person. And it never uses God's law, but rather a person's, or groups of peoples attempt to interpret his laws. So how does that differ from a democratic theocracy like Iran, (aside from the religious text?)
Theonomy does not advocate a form of government where the powerful determine the law independent of those leaders having the support of the people. Rather, Theonomy is a view about which laws peole should support. This is entirely concistent with democratically elected leaderhip.
I think this is not only false, but obviously so - at least if it is not qualified. And once it is qualified, it is unproblematic. A huge amount of moral law should not be legislated on, simply because the law is powerless to affect so many things - lust, greed, hate, bad attitudes, mean spiritedness, malice etc. So it's clearly false that biblical law involves making these things the domain of the state. So we have to qualify it to say that the state should enforce some of the moral law. But since probably all of us agree with that already, as a fact initself this is true but uproblematic. Most do agree, especially at such a conservative site so I'll leave that be. SO how do we determine which moral laws should be legislated upon? Pragmatism? getting more theocratic and less godly by the minute.
This is to say that Theonomy doesn't take into acount the possibility that Theonomy is false. I've certainly taken that possibility inot account, and I have rejected it. It also accepts some important differences between Israel and other nations, I just haven't spelt all that out yet, but it is directly and reptitively dealt with in the literature on Theonomy.
I'll say more about this one in later posts.While, I'd like to hear the differences.

dizzle

March 1st 2006, 08:47 AM

Sounds great. Not sure right now. The Bible, as it exists, has some geogrphical and historical irregularities that I have to dismiss. For instance, no way Abraham had camels. When he was kicking it, they were not domesticated. So, to the extent of that sort of thing, I am for certain errant. But... Outside of that, I waffle around. i am reading alot, but have yet to come down on anything. Not a satisfying answer for you, I am sure, but honest. I think their is a strong possibility Leviticus represents an account of Judahs legal code for the most part, not God's moral mandates for all humanity, and a guide for all legal systems. Well, I am not one to volunteer personal stuff, but since my wife has given me permission to "say what I like in geek land :wink: " she was raised Southern Baptist, and has a fairly literal interpretation, but is not to concerned with it. Praxis concerns her. Theology, not so much. Largely because most inerrantist, errantist, Calvinist, Arminians, etc. believe you should behave in basically the same way. So, she doesn't see the point. I was raised Catholic, specifically educated by the very liberal Jesuits, so that informs my views, too. I don't know where I am right now. I am trying to find my place, but its a process. Prayer, thought, and time.:shrug:

Thanks Ry, I appreciate the answer.

Ryokan

March 1st 2006, 08:48 AM

Thanks Ry, I appreciate the answer.
Your welcome.

dizzle

March 1st 2006, 08:52 AM

Well, I mean that I would say that I find that conclusion - that the penalty may still apply - to be such that Scripture offers no reason to reject it. I assume the confusion arises from what I said next.

The conditions I'm talking about are that both participants are punished or none at all, any witnesses must be subject to the criterion that if they falsify their testinony and are found out, the face the penalty they were seeking to have imposed on the offender, and that - and this is what a lot of people miss - where there is a living identifiable victim, he/she, so far as I can tell, has the power of forgiveness. For example, if my wife - heaven forbid - cheated on me, I am utterly convinced that I would forgive her. This of course means that the other party would not suffer the penalty either.

That is why I think it should not happen, since I think it is right to forgive one another. I don't think this is a New Testament innovation either.

Hmm I have a problem with this, and I think that will surprise you. We are not talking about the application of individual affairs but of the government no? I profess ignorance as to how laws works in various other countries but here in the U.S. if the authorities know that someone has, say, assaulted me - my forgiveness does not result in their pardon from the penalties under the law. It may be weighed, but it is not an automatic pardon - especially in somethng so serious as a capital case (i.e. if the families of a murdered person forgive the murderer that doesn't mean he doesn't suffer the punishment due to society). Are you suggesting that violations of civil law would have the potential of being a capital offense? Or are you not making a distinction between civil and criminal? And isn't the issue of thenomy not JUST the crime against the individual but the crime against God?

dizzle

March 1st 2006, 08:52 AM

I am going to comment more on my stuff with the aldutery deal but I am out of time for this morning.

Ryokan

March 1st 2006, 08:56 AM

themuzicman

March 1st 2006, 10:37 AM

I think the objection to beastiality is better explained through the prescriptive rather than proscriptive statements sometimes made in the New Testament, in this case, Hebrews 13, where the marriage bed is the sole context in which sex is permitted.

I haven't researched kidnapping, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be hard to find something for it, either.

I think the main objection I have to the versions of theonomy that I've encountered are those that insist that the Old Covenant is "the law", but then want to separate out the ritual aspects from the "civil" aspects, as though there is a natural break, when, in reality, it is one covenant intended to be embraced as a whole by the nation of Israel.

The concept of theonomy isn't necessarily offensive to me, but I think need to keep in mind the context in which the scriptural source from whence we draw said morals exists.

Michael

Arnold

March 1st 2006, 10:40 AM

That dichotomy is such that no correct answer can be supplied.Can you explain this a bit?

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 1st 2006, 05:58 PM

Which automatically turns it into "theocracy", not theonomy. When we have to depend on men to interpret and shape the laws, Theonomy, we are talking not about a land ruled by GOd, but a land ruled by men pretendign to be God. Its Iran with a cross.OK that kind of rhetoric is ridiculous. You are injecting the false claim that Theonomy = the form of government whereby a select few act lke God and control the nation. Forewt this. Get it out of your head. It didn't come from me, and it is not entailed by anything I've said. I smell a preconcieved animosity to Theonomy.
Its not relative, though. its absolute, because at the times in question, it was absolutely rgiht, and now its absolutely wrong, and the absolute law giver, GOd, ordained it. Thats not relative.In fact it is relative. That's brute. Otherwise there is literally no such thing as cultural relativity, because anyone could say "well in my culture, this is absolutely the way we do things." To use language as you sare now using it makes the terms mean brand new things, and this is never conducive to communication.
Otherwise, saying the kosher laws are no longer in force is relativity too.That depends on what you think is being said in Kosher law. If you think that they express moral judgements in the first place, you could raise a fair objection. That would be a very difficult case to argue, however, especially in light of th eway various ritual las distinguished between Israelites and foreigners.
I don't think that is what he is saying. What he is saying GOd created moral laws that are in effect at different times, based on his covenants with his people. Thats not relativsim.To say that the moral law changes over time and in differnt places just is relativism. That's what it is.
Its also worth noting while God may hold to the morality set out in Leviticus, the Hebrews codes for enforcing it may in no way be his. Since the ancient Hebrews laws, in many ways, closely resemble the laws of its neighbors in the region, and appear influenced by them, I think that isn't an untenable assumption, though, as I said, I don't know if I hold it.If by "the Hebrew codes" you're referring to things that God did not command, we fully agree.
No. The laws of morality, under such a system, wouldn't have changed at all. Their would just be a different moral code, designed by the objective law giver, for the two different circumstances. Since men aren't changing the law, and since law was such at creation, its not changing, one is just going out of effect and the other into effect.So the laws of morality remain constant but the code of morality changes? You'd need to unpack this in order for it to make sense.
It involves someone calling the shots though, theonomy. Someone who is a person. And it never uses God's law, but rather a person's, or groups of peoples attempt to interpret his laws.Oh, you mean like what we have now, with people interpreting the law?
So how does that differ from a democratic theocracy like Iran, (aside from the religious text?)How does it differ from the USA? Judges interpreting the law and applying it as they interpret it.
SO how do we determine which moral laws should be legislated upon? Pragmatism? getting more theocratic and less godly by the minute. While, I'd like to hear the differences.If Theonomy is correct, then the moral laws that Scripture indicates are so serious on a civil level that they should be legislated on, are the ones that should be legislated on.

And before we continue, can you tell me and all the readers of this thread what you mean by "theocracy"?

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 1st 2006, 06:05 PM

Hmm I have a problem with this, and I think that will surprise you. We are not talking about the application of individual affairs but of the government no? I profess ignorance as to how laws works in various other countries but here in the U.S. if the authorities know that someone has, say, assaulted me - my forgiveness does not result in their pardon from the penalties under the law. It may be weighed, but it is not an automatic pardon - especially in somethng so serious as a capital case (i.e. if the families of a murdered person forgive the murderer that doesn't mean he doesn't suffer the punishment due to society). Are you suggesting that violations of civil law would have the potential of being a capital offense? Or are you not making a distinction between civil and criminal? And isn't the issue of thenomy not JUST the crime against the individual but the crime against God?In biblical law, there was no clear distinction between a crime and a civil offence. Theft is an offence, not against the state, but against the person - so far as the civil authorities are concerned. If I assault you, I have damaged you, not the state, and I owe you recompense.

Of course I'm open to correction on this. I do recommend a book by Gary North called Victim's Rights, which is available free at www.freebooks.com (http://www.freebooks.com), or I have a pdf copy if it's not there anymore.

Yes, I'm suggesting that some violations of the civil law are a capital offence in biblical law, since civil law is basically all there is in governing affairs between people.

In the case of murder, the death penalty is always mandatory, since the victim is dead. There may be other people who were affected too, like the family, but the dead person is the victim of the crime. Scripture specifically singles out murder as a case where no lesser penalty can ever be accepted (Numbers 35:31).

As far as the offence against God is concerned, I'm not sure what you mean. We have all committed sins against God voer which the civil authority has no jurisdiction. God will punish those sins accordingly, or forgive.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 1st 2006, 06:12 PM

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 1st 2006, 07:53 PM

Can you explain this a bit?Well, if the options are a) we apply all the Mosaic law as given, or b) we select which parts we will apply, one can only choose one of the options if one accepts either a or b.

In other words, any person who doesn't accept a) can only choose b if they allow themselves to be categorised according to the questioner's caricature that they select which laws to apply. But what if a person doesn't accept a or b? What if, for example, a person accept Theonomy instead, and think that there is a rationale for understand which laws apply and how, and that this rationale is not something they have selected themselves?

It's like asking: So you accept big government socialism, or are you a total anarchist. Most people are neither, since there are options in between. That's all I meant when I said that your dichotomy is such that no answer can be supplied.

Arnold

March 1st 2006, 07:57 PM

I think the main objection I have to the versions of theonomy that I've encountered are those that insist that the Old Covenant is "the law", but then want to separate out the ritual aspects from the "civil" aspects, as though there is a natural break, when, in reality, it is one covenant intended to be embraced as a whole by the nation of Israel.This is absolutely correct. The Mosaic Law is never referred to as Mosaic laws - plural:

Dt.27.26a Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this law [singular - even at the end of a long list of commandments]

It is one law and cannot be divided - "not the smallest letter or stroke":

Mt.5.18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Mt.5.19a Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven

One is either fully under the Mosaic Law or not at all:

Ro.3.19a Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law

One cannot pick and choose the Mosaic Law:

Ga.3.10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

Ja.2.10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Arnold

March 1st 2006, 07:59 PM

Well, if the options are a) we apply all the Mosaic law as given, or b) we select which parts we will apply, one can only choose one of the options if one accepts either a or b.

In other words, any person who doesn't accept a) can only choose b if they allow themselves to be categorised according to the questioner's caricature that they select which laws to apply. But what if a person doesn't accept a or b? What if, for example, a person accept Theonomy instead, and think that there is a rationale for understand which laws apply and how, and that this rationale is not something they have selected themselves?

It's like asking: So you accept big government socialism, or are you a total anarchist. Most people are neither, since there are options in between. That's all I meant when I said that your dichotomy is such that no answer can be supplied.Please see my previous post to Michael.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 1st 2006, 08:11 PM

This is absolutely correct. The Mosaic Law is never referred to as Mosaic laws - plural:

Dt.27.26a Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this law [singular - even at the end of a long list of commandments]

It is one law and cannot be divided - "not the smallest letter or stroke":

Mt.5.18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Mt.5.19a Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven

One is either fully under the Mosaic Law or not at all:

Ro.3.19a Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law

One cannot pick and choose the Mosaic Law:

Ga.3.10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

Ja.2.10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.This is not a view I can take seriously. Firstly you talk about picking and choosing, and as I explained, that's not an option the Theonomist will choose, then you take references to the law as though this shows that it contains no categories. This is a non sequitur.

Arnold

March 1st 2006, 08:20 PM

This is not a view I can take seriously. Firstly you talk about picking and choosing, and as I explained, that's not an option the Theonomist will choose, then you take references to the law as though this shows that it contains no categories. This is a non sequitur.You are gonig to have to back this up with Scripture. All you seem to be saying is that you don't pick and choose even though you are dividing the Mosaic Law, which is indivisible.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 1st 2006, 08:57 PM

You are gonig to have to back this up with Scripture. All you seem to be saying is that you don't pick and choose even though you are dividing the Mosaic Law, which is indivisible.Well I suppose now it's my turn: Please see my reply to Michael.

Additionally, please understand that believing that there are distinctions in law generated by God is not the same as "picking and choosing," whereby I decide which laws to apply and which to abandon. The two positions are not one.

Arnold

March 1st 2006, 09:26 PM

Well I suppose now it's my turn: Please see my reply to Michael.

Additionally, please understand that believing that there are distinctions in law generated by God is not the same as "picking and choosing," whereby I decide which laws to apply and which to abandon. The two positions are not one.That's a difference without a distinction. But look - I don't care how you want to frame your argument. I have clearly illustrated with Scripture that those who profess to live under any of the law must live under all of the law.

Why do disregard Scripture? This is how cultists deal with Scripture...

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 1st 2006, 09:32 PM

Why do disregard Scripture? This is how cultists deal with Scripture...Two comments: Firstly you're enaging in the fallacy of the complex question, like Have you stoppe dbeating your wife, or when did you commit that murder, or Why do you disregard Scripture.

Secondly, don't deny that the above was an attempted flame. As thread starter I insist that this thread be kept free of flaming or anything that looks like trolling. Please honour that request.

Arnold

March 1st 2006, 09:43 PM

Two comments: Firstly you're enaging in the fallacy of the complex question, like Have you stoppe dbeating your wife, or when did you commit that murder, or Why do you disregard Scripture.Nonsense. Just show me where Scripture contradicts my points and supports your ignoring the Scriptures I have presented.

Secondly, don't deny that the above was an attempted flame. As thread starter I insist that this thread be kept free of flaming or anything that looks like trolling. Please honour that request.It was a simple observation, and your continued obfuscation is proving it.

So let's talk Scripture. I have presented mine - refute it if you can...

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 1st 2006, 09:57 PM

Nonsense. Just show me where Scripture contradicts my points and supports your ignoring the Scriptures I have presented.

It was a simple observation, and your continued obfuscation is proving it.

So let's talk Scripture. I have presented mine - refute it if you can...
This is now for you to regard as a warning, since you didn;t take my comments on board. I will engage the issue. However, this is not - I repeat NOT - a flame zone. It will not be tolerated here. The most appropriate thng to do would be to acknowlegde the flames and see that they were not conducive to our potential discussion. I'll comment on the substantial comments that you made among those other comments a little later today.

dizzle

March 1st 2006, 10:20 PM

Arnold

March 1st 2006, 10:40 PM

This is now for you to regard as a warning, since you didn;t take my comments on board. I will engage the issue. However, this is not - I repeat NOT - a flame zone. It will not be tolerated here. The most appropriate thng to do would be to acknowlegde the flames and see that they were not conducive to our potential discussion. I'll comment on the substantial comments that you made among those other comments a little later today.I didn't flame you, but you certainly are becoming hostile. I am glad however that you have seen the wisdom in addressing my objections instead of just waving them off...

Arnold

March 1st 2006, 10:44 PM

As a participant in this thread, I ask that the posters consider theonomy's tone in the OP - this is not a debate thread, but a discussion thread to understand theonomy (the doctrine) and to have a friendly point counter-point thread. I have encouraged Theo to start just such a thread, and I personally would appreciate if it doesn't go off into an aggressive direction. There are those of us who want to learn, please respect that. You are certainly free to start your own thread if you want to get more aggressive.I presume this is addressed to me.

I at first simply asked a fundemental question completely in line with the topic of the thread - the name of it is "What is Theonomy?" My question was brushed off a couple of times. I then responded to a Muzicman post and then this was responded to by Theonomy with another brushoff.

So tell me Dee Dee - how do you deal with being continually brushed off? :ahem:

dizzle

March 1st 2006, 10:46 PM

It depends. In such a case as this, I would start my own thread. Lately if someone annoys me that much, I put them on ignore. It has been a great way to enjoy the Internet more again. I am getting too old and crabby to deal with some of the nonsense. Thank God for the great admins here so I can skate.

Arnold

March 1st 2006, 10:47 PM

This is now for you to regard as a warning, since you didn;t take my comments on board. I will engage the issue. However, this is not - I repeat NOT - a flame zone. It will not be tolerated here. The most appropriate thng to do would be to acknowlegde the flames and see that they were not conducive to our potential discussion. I'll comment on the substantial comments that you made among those other comments a little later today.I did not flame you - get over it. I am however glad that you have seen the wisdom in answering my objections instead continually brushing me off...

dizzle

March 1st 2006, 10:50 PM

why did you delete your post and then repost the exact same thing?

Arnold

March 1st 2006, 10:51 PM

why did you delete your post and then repost the exact same thing?I didn't - what's going on?

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 1st 2006, 10:54 PM

Arnold, if you really think the standards of this thread are too high, and that you have a divinely ordained right to invade other people's threads with accusations of being cult like and propagating unwanted vitriol and ruining potentially rewarding discussions, please, start a locker room thread and complain that you ought to have this right. Don't post here about it. This request has been made to you very clearly, and not at all in the spirit of your posts. Respect it. Even if you think it's stupid and unreasonable for other people to expect these standards.

Having identified the obvious flaming and borderline trolling on your part, I have said that I will select out of your posts those comments that are related to the thread, and I will comment on them.

Arnold

March 1st 2006, 10:58 PM

Arnold, if you really think the standards of this thread are too high, and that you have a divinely ordained right to invade other people's threads with accusations of being cult like and propagating unwanted vitriol and ruining potentially rewarding discussions, please, start a locker room thread and complain that you ought to have this right. Don't post here about it.

Having identified the obvious flaming and borderline torlling on your part, I have said that I will select out of your posts those comments that are related to the thread, and I will comment on them.Stop hiding behind your artificial indignation. If you had just addressed my questions in the first place instead of just brushing me off there would not have been a problem. Your intransigence is the problem here.

But it is easy to see why you wish to avoid me... :ahem:

dizzle

March 1st 2006, 11:00 PM

settle down boys :wink:

Ryokan

March 1st 2006, 11:00 PM

OK that kind of rhetoric is ridiculous. You are injecting the false claim that Theonomy = the form of government whereby a select few act lke God and control the nation. Forewt this. Get it out of your head. It didn't come from me, and it is not entailed by anything I've said. I smell a preconcieved animosity to Theonomy. You claim theonomy is: to live by Gods law. i am saying, that sounds great. However, you also want to base your government on a paticular part of God's law. Which is divided, interpretted, and enforced based wholly upon human ideas. Whether a small elite, or the masses, human beings are taking what is written in the bible, interpretting it, and forming it into modern laws. Some men, somehwre, are pretending they are God writing a legal code. This is similiar to what they did in Iran. just a different source material. ITs not a mischaracterization at all. In fact it is relative. That's brute. Otherwise there is literally no such thing as cultural relativity, because anyone could say "well in my culture, this is absolutely the way we do things." To use language as you sare now using it makes the terms mean brand new things, and this is never conducive to communication. If I am a God, and I ordain to moral codes, at the beginning of time, for two differents peoples and times, Am I being relative? Or excercising my perogative as a diety. Misrepresenting others statements is not conducive to communication.
That depends on what you think is being said in Kosher law. If you think that they express moral judgements in the first place, you could raise a fair objection. That would be a very difficult case to argue, however, especially in light of th eway various ritual las distinguished between Israelites and foreigners. But then, ultimately, you are having men divide the law. And once you do that, however good they may be at it, it is still a man made law.
To say that the moral law changes over time and in differnt places just is relativism. That's what it is. Then the majority of CHristians could be understood as moral relatavists. This is not right theonomy. its like the way LGM used to call the early christians cultists. in a technical since, that is exactly what they were. But in the popular usuage of the word, cultist is a derogatory name. It is relatvie, to the time and place. But it is not moral relativity as espoused by some secularists, and based not on cultural whims, but on God's objective, divine will. So, to call it relativity is misleading in a general conversation.
If by "the Hebrew codes" you're referring to things that God did not command, we fully agree.
So the laws of morality remain constant but the code of morality changes? You'd need to unpack this in order for it to make sense. The things GOd says are immoral could stay immoral, and be immoral, without the Hebrew legal system attached to them.
Oh, you mean like what we have now, with people interpreting the law?
How does it differ from the USA? Judges interpreting the law and applying it as they interpret it. It doesn't. That's the point. Its just another theocracy. Men playing at God.
If Theonomy is correct, then the moral laws that Scripture indicates are so serious on a civil level that they should be legislated on, are the ones that should be legislated on.

And before we continue, can you tell me and all the readers of this thread what you mean by "theocracy"?
Theocracy(thanks Webster's) 1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.

I would add that the masses, in a democratic theocracy, could be interpretted as divinely guided, too.

Arnold

March 1st 2006, 11:01 PM

settle down boys :wink:I thought moderators were not allowed to moderate threads they are posting in...

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 1st 2006, 11:07 PM

In spite of the fact that I have said I am willing to separarte out the trollng and flaiming from Arnold's posts and respond to the points he made among those other comments, he insists on continuing to be, in simply terms, a dork.

You were going to get responses from me, Arnold. Now you are not. Leave this thread and take your concerns elsewhere.

Arnold

March 1st 2006, 11:13 PM

Spinyn00bman

March 1st 2006, 11:20 PM

You are simply a whiner and a coward - and a cultist.

Case closed...

You Arnold, are a twit.

Plain and simple. Some of us are reading this thread to learn....you are seeking to start a fight.

Get lost.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 1st 2006, 11:21 PM

You claim theonomy is: to live by Gods law. i am saying, that sounds great. However, you also want to base your government on a paticular part of God's law. Which is divided, interpretted, and enforced based wholly upon human ideas. Whether a small elite, or the masses, human beings are taking what is written in the bible, interpretting it, and forming it into modern laws.Yes
Some men, somehwre, are pretending they are God writing a legal code.No, and where on earth did this pop up from?
This is similiar to what they did in Iran. just a different source material. ITs not a mischaracterization at all.OK, then if the only similarity between Theonomy and Iran is the fact that they are taking principles and applying them to contemporary situations, then it's no more similar to Iran than to a whole number of western democracies as well.
If I am a God, and I ordain to moral codes, at the beginning of time, for two differents peoples and times, Am I being relative? Or excercising my perogative as a diety.Both.
Misrepresenting others statements is not conducive to communication.I didn't misrepresent anything. The above scenario is moral relativism, since it denies moral absolutism.
Then the majority of CHristians could be understood as moral relatavists. This is not right theonomy. its like the way LGM used to call the early christians cultists. in a technical since, that is exactly what they were. But in the popular usuage of the word, cultist is a derogatory name. It is relatvie, to the time and place. But it is not moral relativity as espoused by some secularists, and based not on cultural whims, but on God's objective, divine will.This is not really the usual way i think about the word "objective." Nor is this like what you are referring to in LGM's posts. I do think that far to many Christians are moral relativists to some extent, and I think this is a bad thing.
So, to call it relativity is misleading in a general conversation.No, no! I really mean that it is moral relativism as traditionally understood. there's no equivocation or slippery word usage at all here.
The things GOd says are immoral could stay immoral, and be immoral, without the Hebrew legal system attached to them.But you said that the moral code could change, even though moral truths don't. Is that what you meant?
It doesn't. That's the point. Its just another theocracy. Men playing at God.If that's all you mean, then any government is an attempt at theocracy. But that's just not at all how I - or many people, I suspect - think about the idea of theocracy.
Theocracy(thanks Webster's) 1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.

I would add that the masses, in a democratic theocracy, could be interpretted as divinely guided, too.Then theocracy becomes so trivial as to be unalarming. I do want to live in a society that endorses standards that are divinely ordained and just.

Arnold

March 1st 2006, 11:22 PM

You Arnold, are a twit.

Plain and simple. Some of us are reading this thread to learn....you are seeking to start a fight.

Get lost.

Oh another brave moderator. Can you address my scriptural objections? Or are you nothing more than a cultist like Theonomy?

Locker room material

Ryokan

March 1st 2006, 11:47 PM

I can't talk to you civilly about this subject, theonomy. We talk aside each other. I am bowing out. Sorry.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 2nd 2006, 12:18 AM

I can't talk to you civilly about this subject, theonomy. We talk aside each other. I am bowing out. Sorry.I'm sorry about that, I actually thought we were doing OK. Ah well, take care.

Ryokan

March 2nd 2006, 08:34 AM

I'm sorry about that, I actually thought we were doing OK. Ah well, take care.
I might try again later today or tommorrw. At the time, I was very angry personally, and it was leaking all over my post. Sorry.

themuzicman

March 2nd 2006, 08:56 AM

We've discussed this before (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=55415&page=4&pp=16), and I offered a fairly length defence of the practice of categorizing law (beginning at post #60).
I thought you might want to summarize it here for this thread.

HRG_new

March 3rd 2006, 04:13 AM

Theonomy entails the rejection of moral relativism. Moral relativism is the ethical doctrine that morality is relative, either to the individual or to a specific culture. In the individualistic variety, what's morally right for me might not be morally right for you, and what's morally right for you and me might not be right for our neighbour.

Yes, I reject that. What's morally right for you and me is morally right for every moral being - including god(s). If it is immoral for me and you to order genocide on the Amalekites, it is immoral for Jehovah as well.

Or not ?

I submit that theist moralities, since they issue a moral blank check to one or more specific beings, are actually inherently relative.

This is a theist only section. Please read the rules before you post.

dizzle

March 3rd 2006, 08:58 AM

This is a Christian only area HRG

dizzle

March 5th 2006, 02:16 AM

I am back to this thread to do what I had promised and comment some as well.

Theonomy my argument vis a vis the adultery case is this. Israel had a unique mission of bringing the Messiah into the world. It is for this reason that adultery was do deadly serious to be a capital offense because bloodlines and ceremonial purity was so important to the redemptive plan.

Bloodlines in that the tribes had to be kept pure and patrimony could not afford to be in question - thus severe penalties for adultery which undermines certainty in patrimony.

Bloodlines were also important for multiple aspects of the ceremonial law which pointed to Christ. So for the purpose of the fulfillment of prophecy and purity of redemptive relevation, that offense had a much greater consquence than it has today.

I think that is a valid and non-relativistic argument against theonomy in that case. And I think if theonomy in other areas is not valid, it will be a similar argument as to why.

dizzle

March 5th 2006, 02:20 AM

In biblical law, there was no clear distinction between a crime and a civil offence. Theft is an offence, not against the state, but against the person - so far as the civil authorities are concerned. If I assault you, I have damaged you, not the state, and I owe you recompense.

Of course I'm open to correction on this. I do recommend a book by Gary North called Victim's Rights, which is available free at www.freebooks.com (http://www.freebooks.com), or I have a pdf copy if it's not there anymore.

Yes, I'm suggesting that some violations of the civil law are a capital offence in biblical law, since civil law is basically all there is in governing affairs between people.

In the case of murder, the death penalty is always mandatory, since the victim is dead. There may be other people who were affected too, like the family, but the dead person is the victim of the crime. Scripture specifically singles out murder as a case where no lesser penalty can ever be accepted (Numbers 35:31).

As far as the offence against God is concerned, I'm not sure what you mean. We have all committed sins against God voer which the civil authority has no jurisdiction. God will punish those sins accordingly, or forgive.

Okay - I would have to think some on this lack of distinction between civil and criminal in the OT. As far as the offense against God, David said with regards to his aldutery [to God] "Against You and You only have I sinned." Enticement to apostasy was also a capital offense.... I am at a loss honestly Theonomy to "prove" that the bulk of OT crimes were primarily crimes against God - it seems self-evident to me.

dizzle

March 5th 2006, 02:22 AM

I am not going to address any of Ry's posts unless he returns to the thread out of his respect to leave it be for the time being.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 5th 2006, 02:33 AM

Theonomy my argument vis a vis the adultery case is this. Israel had a unique mission of bringing the Messiah into the world. It is for this reason that adultery was do deadly serious to be a capital offense because bloodlines and ceremonial purity was so important to the redemptive plan.

Bloodlines in that the tribes had to be kept pure and patrimony could not afford to be in question - thus severe penalties for adultery which undermines certainty in patrimony.If this is the reason why adultery was a capital offence, then it would follow that adultery with your husband's borther would not be a capital offence as adultery, since the bloodline would be unaffected.
Bloodlines were also important for multiple aspects of the ceremonial law which pointed to Christ.Can you give us some examples?
So for the purpose of the fulfillment of prophecy and purity of redemptive relevation, that offense had a much greater consquence than it has today.Well, unless I can be shown that adultery in cases that did not affect bloodlines was different from adultery in cases that did affect bloodlines, I'm not sure that there is a strong argument here. Adoption has exactly the same effect that you allude to as well, but adoption is not an offence at all.
I think that is a valid and non-relativistic argument against theonomy in that case. And I think if theonomy in other areas is not valid, it will be a similar argument as to why.Well, you can see why I don't think it is a good argument. But also, it's important to note that it's not an anti-theonomic argument either. If there is a good argument that an offence was only regarded as so serious because of covenant specific ceremonial reasons or something similar (as in the case of laws having purely typological significance), then Theonomy, at least as I have described it thus far, readily accomodates the change in application that the argument requires.

dizzle

March 5th 2006, 02:47 AM

If this is the reason why adultery was a capital offence, then it would follow that adultery with your husband's borther would not be a capital offence as adultery, since the bloodline would be unaffected.
Can you give us some examples?

Examples of what, I am not sure what you are asking. If the general principle of adultery is bad no matter what, and specifically even more bad in the case of Israel arguing by exception you know is not a good argument. You don't base principalities upon exceptions but upon the rule. Further, it wouldn't matter if one specific case wouldn't affect a specific bloodline because I am not claiming that it was simply a practical rule, but one to show the profound importance, so everyone would have to follow it. In the same way, you are inadvertantly arguing like those who argue against the teleogical argument against same sex marriage by pointing out that the same heterosexual don't have children. It doesn't matter. The rule is children, and marriage is protected and set apart for heterosexuals even if that particular couple is not planning on children or is sterile for the preservation of the culture and principle.

Well, unless I can be shown that adultery in cases that did not affect bloodlines was different from adultery in cases that did affect bloodlines, I'm not sure that there is a strong argument here. Adoption has exactly the same effect that you allude to as well, but adoption is not an offence at all.

Shown above.

Well, you can see why I don't think it is a good argument.

Actually no not at all. I think it is anachronistically individualistic, which is not what Hebrew culture was.

But also, it's important to note that it's not an anti-theonomic argument either. If there is a good argument that an offence was only regarded as so serious because of covenant specific ceremonial reasons or something similar (as in the case of laws having purely typological significance), then Theonomy, at least as I have described it thus far, readily accomodates the change in application that the argument requires.

Yes - but I think then as Ryokan did with theocracy, theonomy becomes something quite unradical.

You asked about bloodline related ceremonial laws - the priesthood is the first one that comes to mind.

Wyzaard

March 5th 2006, 02:56 AM

Then theocracy becomes so trivial as to be unalarming. I do want to live in a society that endorses standards that are divinely ordained and just.

Ummm... I don't, partially because no one has shown that such divine standards exist outside of their claims that they are, partially because the only standards of worth endosing are those of our own collectively human-ordained... I mean really... why should I defer to the whims of a bunch of old guys claiming that some cosmic inhuman thingamabob wants 'its' standards to rule over us?

Really... why should anyone put up with theonomist designs for power?

this area is for theists only. Please do not post here.

dizzle

March 5th 2006, 02:56 AM

Wyzaard this is a Christian only section.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 5th 2006, 03:30 AM

Examples of what, I am not sure what you are asking. If the general principle of adultery is bad no matter what, and specifically even more bad in the case of Israel arguing by exception you know is not a good argument. You don't base principalities upon exceptions but upon the rule.
But there's the rub. Your argument, if I have understood it, is that the reason this rule exists (i.e. the reason the maximum penalty for adultery was so high) is that it potentially interferes with bloodlines. I pointed to a cases where this doesn't result from adulter, and your seem to be fending those cases off by saying that they are exceptions to the rule. The question of course is: What rule? The only way to call these cases exceptions is to appeal to the rule that is in dispute.
Further, it wouldn't matter if one specific case wouldn't affect a specific bloodline because I am not claiming that it was simply a practical rule, but one to show the profound importance, so everyone would have to follow it.
As far as I can tell, to say that the reason for the high penalty was to prevent interference with the bloodlines actually is a practical reason and no more. Have I missed something? I agree that the penalty that existed did exist because of the profound importance of not committing adultery, but not for the practical reason you cite, but rather because it violates marriage.
In the same way, you are inadvertantly arguing like those who argue against the teleogical argument against same sex marriage by pointing out that the same heterosexual don't have children. It doesn't matter. The rule is children, and marriage is protected and set apart for heterosexuals even if that particular couple is not planning on children or is sterile for the preservation of the culture and principle.
The problem with the comparison is that I don't think homosexuality is wrong because the production of children is impossible. I think that is a negative consequence of homosexuality, but it's not what generates the prohibition or even the punishment in the Torah.
Actually no not at all. I think it is anachronistically individualistic, which is not what Hebrew culture was.
No, whatever shortcomings it may have, individualism is very certainly not one of them. If I were referring to individual cases you'd be right (like the case of John and Sally), but as the Torah does, I'm referring to classes of cases. The Torah uses casuaistic law to refer to classes of cases all the time, so this suggestion is certainly nothing anachronistic.
Yes - but I think then as Ryokan did with theocracy, theonomy becomes something quite unradical.Yes, and in fact I agree that it is really not that radical, given some assumptions that Christians should find fairly plausible. What people tend to reject is a caricature. So I do regard this disagreement as a completely legitimate disagreement for two theonomists (like you and me) to have in-house.
You asked about bloodline related ceremonial laws - the priesthood is the first one that comes to mind.OK, but here the bloodline issue is somewhate different isn't it, since in those cases of the priestly line there is no practical consequence of interefering with messiah's bloodline. So yes, bloodlines are involved in the sense that you had to be of a certain bloodline to be a priest, but in the case of adultery you're talking about something teleological, claiming that the reason a certain rule existed is because of what it would do to bloodlines in the future, or at least what it might ultimately do to one of them.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 6th 2006, 06:39 AM

I'll say a few things about the issue of categories of law, as that is an issue that has been mentioned in this thread.

The first thing I ought to say is that in spite of what might be suggested by some of the posts here, every single one of us believes that there are/were categories of law in the Torah. Every single one of us, whether we are willing to phrase it that way, believes this. Consider a few examples. The person who insists that there are no categories of law, as a matter of brute fact, believes that some laws were about personal injuries, and some were not. This means that the law can be categorised into laws about personal injury and laws that are not about personal injury. Likewise, that same person will believe that some of the law was about food, and the rest of the law was not about food. This means that we can categorise the law into food laws and non-food laws. So the first myth that must be completely rejected is that there just are no categories of law.

The objection against Theonomy relating to categories then cannot be simply that the law cannot be categorised, since this is just obviously not true. The objection must be - and I think this is what is generally intended - that the law has no categories that are relevant to the claim that the way we follow God's law will be different to the way an Israelite in the time of the Old Testament followed God's law.

This claim is more interesting if for no other reason than it actually gets past first base (whereas the claims that the law really cannot be categorised at all doesn't even get moving). The nature of the argument is probably easiest to appreciate by looking at how the claim is made in the cut and thrust of debate.

Robert Lightner:

That the Law contains legislation related to Israel’s moral, religious, and civil life is not disputed. However, when the parts are divided to support the contention that some of the Law is still operative as a rule of life today while other parts are not, then a totally new and unwarranted concept is introduced, a concept foreign to the Old Testament. The Law given to Moses includes 613 commandments. The 613 individual laws were divided into 365 negative laws and 248 positive ones…

As an indivisible unit the Law is not to be divided with some of it operative today while other parts are not.

(Robert P. Lightner, “Theological Perspectives on Theonomy Part 3: A Dispensational Response to Theonomy,” BibSac 143:571 (1986), 237-238.)

And Norman Geisler:

Nowhere in the Old Testament is there a separation made between the moral and the civil or between the civil and the ceremonial aspects of Moses’ law. And nowhere in the New Testament does it declare that only the ceremonial aspects of the law of Moses have been abolished.

(Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 205.)

So here's my response to this kind of argument.

Firstly, in spite of what Lightner might think, it is of no significance at all that the concept of some laws continuing and some not continuing was foreign to the Jew living in Old Testament Israel. The reason for this is that Theonomists, obviously, don't say that any categories of laws did not apply to Jews in the Old Testament, so the thought need not have occurred to them that such laws did not apply. After all, the claim in question is that this change occurred at the end of the Old Testament, not during it.

But on the substantial issue, namely whether or not there are relevant categories of law. I think there are. What I will do here is just summarise my reasons for thinking this, and the kinds of categories that I think we can legitimately infer.

Explicit Categories

Sometimes the law is absolutely explicit that there are laws that apply to Jews that do not apply to foreigners. Take Deuteronomy 14:21, “You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to aliens residing in your towns for them to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God” (emphasis added). According to Calum Carmichael, “It is possible to read this motive clause as referring not only to this prohibition [i.e. eating a dead animal] but also to all the preceding food laws (xiv. 3-20).” (Calum M. Carmichael, The Laws of Deuteronomy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974), 78.)

Compare this with something like Leviticus 24:22, "whoever kills a man must be put to death. You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born." The two cases present us with a very obvious difference. In one case jews are treated as different from Gentiles, whereas in the other case the law applies to all in exactly the same way.

Implicit Categories

I also think that there is a very good case to be made that there are some categories of law which, although not explicitly stated, if real, enable us to better make sense of certain passages of Scripture. Take Hosea 6:6a, “I desire mercy rather than sacrifice” (my translation).

If the law is an indivisible unit in the sense that there is literally no distinction to be made in the status that each law has, comments like this one are actually unjust, since they require that we violate laws that we ought to obey. In the prophetic literature especially, the reader gets the unmistakable impression that there is a “kind” of law which in itself is not a demonstration of justice and morality, and which is really an empty farce if it is observed in the absence of justice and morality. I agree with Millar Burrows:

The priests and Levites, as teachers of the law, were involved with both ethical and cultic practices. Their concern for holiness embraced both moral and ritual purity. Unfortunately this very fact encouraged an assumption that God could be satisfied with formal worship regardless of human relations. Against this the prophets fulminated, voicing the wrath of God himself. In spite of the prominence of ritual in the law, they pronounced sacrifice and festivals futile without justice and mercy, or even as not desired by God at all (e.g., Am. 5:21-24; Hos. 6:6; Isa. 1:12ff.; Mic. 6:6-8; Jer. 7:22f.)

(Millar Burrows, “Old Testament Ethics and the Ethics of Jesus,” in James L. Crensahw and John T. Willis (eds), Essays in Old Testament Ethics (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1974), 234.)

I cannot for the life of me imagine Israel being told that unless they sacrifice correctly, they may as well murder and steal, yet in the passages referred to above, Israel is essentially told that without justice, they may as well not offer sacrifices. So Burrows, in my view, is right to say that what we are seeing here is the “subordination of the ritual to the moral law.” Obviously implicit in this reading of the text is the fact that there is such a distinction to be made.

Walter Kaiser provides other examples where such categorisation, although not stated, is implicit:

First of all, the ceremonial legislation had a built-in warning that it would only remain in effect until the real, to which it pointed, came. This built-in obsolescence was signalled in the text from the moment that the legislation on the tabernacle and its services was first given. It is contained in the word “pattern” found in Exod 25:8, 40. This meant that the tabernacle, its priests, it sacrifices, and its associated ritual looked forward to the redemptive work of the Savior. In the meantime men and women had to be satisfied with that which was only a copy, a pattern, a shadow, a type of the real, the actual, the antitype that was to come.

(Walter C. Kaiser, “God’s Promise Plan and His Gracious Law,” JETS 33:3 (1990), 291.)

So I think there are definitely important categories in Old Testament law. So far, all I have done - all I have tried to do - is to suggest [i]that there are categories. I haven’t said anything about how to go about categorising the law, so I'll briefly do that now.

1. Scope

I think it is obvious that if a command is given in the law explicitly to a special class (e.g. for an Israelite but not a foreigner, for a priest but not for others), then it is special in some way and not generally reflective of a moral norm. Such laws pertain to national or covenant uniqueness. They have been called “separation” laws, as they call Israel to self-consciously be different from the other nations.

2. Pre-Mosaic teaching

I suggest two principles that may help to us when it comes to discerning categories of law: a.) When universal permission is given to do an act prior to the giving of the law (e.g. eat the flesh of any animal), we may be justified in seeing this as evidence that the prohibition of the same act within the law may be of a special nature, applying only to Israel. b.) When apparently universal condemnation is directed at certain actions prior to the giving of the law (e.g. eating blood, homosexual acts), we may be justified in seeing prohibitions of these actions within the law as general, not special (i.e. not “ritual”).

It should be obvious that this does not commit one to the view that only pre-Mosaic moral norms remain binding, but it does show us how those revealed norms can help us to understand whether some (although clearly not all) commands are of a peculiar or a generally moral nature.

3. Divine Relegation

Where one kind of law is set over and against another kind of law as less (or more) important, or in a way that suggests that one is worthless without the other, I suggest that a legitimate category distinction may be drawn, since more than one kind of law is presupposed by such relegation.

4. Typological (redemptive) function

I'll basically quote here from a larger work of mine on the subject.

We live in a Post Old Testament age. As Christians we cannot read the Old Testament as though the New Testament did not exist. In a Christian context, for example, who can read of the Passover or the yearly offering of the high priest, and not see the sacrifice of Christ foreshadowed? In many instances of Mosaic Law, typology is at work, “a relationship in which something occurring in the past is a copy or pattern of something of something in the present or future.” The purpose of typology then is to “instruct by presenting a picture rather than data.” (“Typology” in Allen C. Myers (ed.), The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 1024, author of individual article not named.) Laws that govern the priesthood (or rather the priesthood itself), the sacrifice to atone for sin, and the temple, along with a whole host of other elements of Mosaic legislation, can be (in fact we would say must be) seen as shadows or types of Christ and his saving work in the New Testament. F. F. Bruce is surely right to say that “It is only in the light of the antitype that the relevance of the type can be appreciated.” (F. F. Bruce, “Typology,” New Bible Dictionary (Leicester: InterVarsity, 1982, 2nd ed.), 1227.)

However, we do not want to limit laws that bear a typological to being events or symbols in the past that referred to something in the future (even though they may be such). In their original historical context such laws seem to clearly be “different” from others, serving an entirely distinct function. In the context of explaining the basis on which he sees the law as being divided into moral and ceremonial commands, Bahnsen makes an observation that is relevant to our discussion of this typological function of law:

[C]eremonial laws – or redemptive provisions – reflect the mercy of God in saving those who have violated His moral standards; such laws define the way of redemption, typify Christ’s saving economy, and maintain the holiness (or “separation”) of the redeemed community.

To illustrate the difference between these two kinds of law, the Old Testament prohibited stealing as a moral precept, but it also made the provision of the sacrificial system so that thieves could have their sins forgiven.

(Greg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today (Tyler: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985), 136.)

I'll leave it there for now. In short, I think it is defensible from the perspective of biblical studies to say that the Law did in fact contain categories of law, and that those categories are non-trivial, in the sense that they are in fact the kind of categories that lend themselves to genuine questions of whether or not some categories might be inherently limited by covenant-historical circumstances. In this sense, it is fairly plausible to say that is just no way to apply them today, or at any rate that their application would be significantly different from their application within the Old Covenant.

dizzle

March 6th 2006, 08:59 AM

furay

March 6th 2006, 11:44 AM

Who enforces this "Theonomy"? Why should I recognise their authority?

Little Shepherd

March 6th 2006, 03:04 PM

Who enforces this "Theonomy"? Why should I recognise their authority?
To my knowledge, there is no government currently enforcing theonomy. If there was, however, you would recognize its authority due to the fact that it would be the governing power and Christians are to submit to the governments set over them. You may be able to argue that some OT laws are superfluous nowadays, but you couldn't argue that they would in any way cause you to act against God so there would be no excuse for "going vigilante" as I like to call it.

furay

March 6th 2006, 03:30 PM

To my knowledge, there is no government currently enforcing theonomy. If there was, however, you would recognize its authority due to the fact that it would be the governing power and Christians are to submit to the governments set over them. You may be able to argue that some OT laws are superfluous nowadays, but you couldn't argue that they would in any way cause you to act against God so there would be no excuse for "going vigilante" as I like to call it.
Ok, fair enough. But how would this government rise to power? Am I supposed to vote them into office or is this the result of a revolution or what? Why should I support them? Granted, if I were born into a Theonomy, then the Biblical principle would be obedience to this government, but none exist on earth right now.

Little Shepherd

March 6th 2006, 03:50 PM

Ok, fair enough. But how would this government rise to power? Am I supposed to vote them into office or is this the result of a revolution or what?
I think voting people who agree with it into power is the best way for a Christian in the US to go. If we try to start a revolution, that's not submitting at all. We should use the processes that we've been given. If we can't do it that way, then I guess we just won't get theonomy.
Why should I support them? Granted, if I were born into a Theonomy, then the Biblical principle would be obedience to this government, but none exist on earth right now.
You're right that the principle of obedience only applies to the government you find yourself under, and that we have none practicing theonomy at the moment. But should you support the adoption of theonomy by your government? After seeing Theonomy's explanations, I'm personally leaning towards yes(as long as the proper channels are followed and we don't "go vigilante" in the process), but I understand that it's a very personal decision. If this bit of theology interests you, then all I can say is that you should gather more info about it and pray for guidance. That's what I'm going to do anyway.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 6th 2006, 08:24 PM

As far as the offense against God, David said with regards to his aldutery [to God] "Against You and You only have I sinned." Enticement to apostasy was also a capital offense.... I am at a loss honestly Theonomy to "prove" that the bulk of OT crimes were primarily crimes against God - it seems self-evident to me.I agree. All sins are sins against God. But the civil law exists because of the horizontal effects of sin as well. God will exact His justice on the day of judgement.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 6th 2006, 08:25 PM

I think voting people who agree with it into power is the best way for a Christian in the US to go. If we try to start a revolution, that's not submitting at all. We should use the processes that we've been given. If we can't do it that way, then I guess we just won't get theonomy.

You're right that the principle of obedience only applies to the government you find yourself under, and that we have none practicing theonomy at the moment. But should you support the adoption of theonomy by your government? After seeing Theonomy's explanations, I'm personally leaning towards yes(as long as the proper channels are followed and we don't "go vigilante" in the process), but I understand that it's a very personal decision. If this bit of theology interests you, then all I can say is that you should gather more info about it and pray for guidance. That's what I'm going to do anyway.Very well said, I fully agree.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 6th 2006, 08:27 PM

I don't know why this was just never an issue to me - it is another one of those things I find self-evident in the Scripture and to ask for a "verse" is like that guy in Paltalk who wanted a verse where the disciples or Paul asked if there was another way for salvation.Absolutely, I think it is quite obvious in Scripture. It was always accept as such by the Church as well, that is (mostly) until people needed a weapon against Theonomy.

dizzle

March 25th 2006, 01:47 PM

Okay I am back - Theonomy you had asked more about what I said with regards to adultery - i.e. the severity of the penalty then I think was culture and time-bound in nearly the same way that the ceremonial laws were.

In order to provide further information I found where N.T. Wright expressed this concept well in The Resurrection of the Son of God (pages 99-100)

The hope of the nation was thus firs tand foremost that thepeople, the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, would multiple and flourish. Even in the sotry of the Fall there is hope in childbearing. Children, and then grandchildren, are God's great blessing, and to live long enough to see them is one of the finest things to hope for. It is a sign of Joseph's great blessedness that he was able to see and hold his own great-grandchildren. Conversely, to remain childless is a sign of great misery (people today in Europe and America, with all kinds of other aspirations, often regard this ancient stigma of childlessness as quaint and small-minded, but in a whorld where children are the centre of one's future hope it makes a lot of sense). To see one's children die or be killed was perhaps the greatest possible personal disaster. To perpetuate not only the nation but one's individual family line was thus a sacred responsibility, requiring special customs and laws to safeguard it. Such beliefs and practices are hardly unique to ancient Israel, but they became all the more important through their association with the promises made to Abraham and his heirs, and through the events that had formed Isrreal into a people with a distinct sense of vocation and mission in the world. To the devout Israelity, the continuance of the family line was not simply a matter of keeping a name alive. It was part of the way in which God's promises, for Israel and perhaps even for the whole world, would be fulfilled. Hence the importance, particularly in the post-exilic period when the nation was gathering itself together again, of those genealogies which seem so baffling unreligious to late modernity, and of the prophetic insistence on the 'holy seed.'

Along with the family went the land. God had promised to give the land of the Canaanites to Abraham's family, and this remained the patriarchal hope up to the eventual conquest.

Emphasis mine.

I think this is model than on how to cash out why the OT civil laws and models may not apply today. You may counter that such is not inherently anti-thetical to theonomy. I would say that it is - unless we reduce theonomy to simply "whatever still applies today, applies today and it should be reflected in our laws." I agree with that, and I think a lot of "anti-theonomic" people would. Theonomy today has become associated with the majority if not all of the OT laws and civil models being transported into being desirable for the model of today's laws with the most "infamous" examples being the death penalty for adultery and sodomy.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 25th 2006, 09:24 PM

Okay I am back - Theonomy you had asked more about what I said with regards to adultery - i.e. the severity of the penalty then I think was culture and time-bound in nearly the same way that the ceremonial laws were.I agree with what Wright says here about the great value of producing progeny in Ancient Israel, but I do not think it in any way commits one to the view that the maximum penalty for adultery existed for the messianic reason you have suggested.

Wright's point seems to be that producing children was important to them because of the promise made to Abraham - namely that his descendents would be like the stars of the sky and the sand, i.e. great and many.

The section that you bolded related to this sacred responsibility: "to perpetuate not only the nation but one's individual family line..." This does not neatly equate to the claim that the laws set up around this practice were in place to protect the purity of Messiah's line. Now, I agree that the purity of Messiah's line was important, and the purity of the line was protected by the providence of God in ensuring that as a matter of fact Jesus was the legitimate descendent of David.

Consider the case of a man who seduces a betrothed woman and sleeps with her, which is essentially adultery if it was consensual. This is spelt out in Deuteronomy 22:22-27
22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
Notice that in either case the resulting pregnancy would compromise hepurity of the lineage, whether consensual or not. If the fact of a corrupted lineage was the reason for the punishment, to cut of the impure line, then the above passage seems out of place, since if your take on the rationale for punishment is correct, the second scenario lets a potential ancestor of Messiah be raped, bringing Messiah's lineage into disrepute.

Notice that this is not a case of letting the exception establish the rule, because the reason you have given for the punishment, if it is sound, must bring about punishment wherever that reason exists, and it exists in the second scenario outlined above.

Have a look at Leviticus 18:8
v.8 The nakedness of your father’s wife you must not uncover – it is your father’s nakedness.This is a sexual sin like adultery, and here we have not just the prohibition, but also the rationale. The rationale for what makes this wrong is that the woman in question here "belongs" to another man. her nakedness is his, and to intrude on that violates the one flesh union established witht he first man and woman. I think that is what makes adultery wrong, and that this is what brings the punishment about.
You may counter that such is not inherently anti-thetical to theonomy. I would say that it is - unless we reduce theonomy to simply "whatever still applies today, applies today and it should be reflected in our laws." I agree with that, and I think a lot of "anti-theonomic" people would. Theonomy today has become associated with the majority if not all of the OT laws and civil models being transported into being desirable for the model of today's laws with the most "infamous" examples being the death penalty for adultery and sodomy.Theonomy has become associated with the view that the moral law and its civil application are binding. So even if I were to accept what you are saying, it would not reduce Theonomy to a trivial claim like "whatever still applies today, applies today and it should be reflected in our laws." Your claim, after all, is that the maximum penalty for adultery is not an application of the moral law, it is comething "ceremoinial" as it were, something that exists simply as a pre-Messianic safeguard. But nobody would think that all punishments in the Torah amount to this, so if I accepted your claim, I could in fact maintain that it is compatible with Theonomy.

dizzle

March 25th 2006, 09:51 PM

I agree with what Wright says here about the great value of producing progeny in Ancient Israel, but I do not think it in any way commits one to the view that the maximum penalty for adultery existed for the messianic reason you have suggested.

I agree and my wording was too narrowly phrased as I do not discuss this topic often - I expand my point to cultural and religious reasons which is what Wright was stating. Further just because a particular line is not the Messianic line is, I think, reductionist reasoning. It is the sacred honour of the purity of lineage.

Wright's point seems to be that producing children was important to them because of the promise made to Abraham - namely that his descendents would be like the stars of the sky and the sand, i.e. great and many.

Actually Wright is not saying that at all, but I would say that. I have a criticism of Wright in this section, but his overall point is that early Israelites had a distinctly earthly hope unlike Christians.

The section that you bolded related to this sacred responsibility: "to perpetuate not only the nation but one's individual family line..." This does not neatly equate to the claim that the laws set up around this practice were in place to protect the purity of Messiah's line. Now, I agree that the purity of Messiah's line was important, and the purity of the line was protected by the providence of God in ensuring that as a matter of fact Jesus was the legitimate descendent of David.

It isn't just as narrow as that, but the patriarchal importance of also preserving ONE's family line and tribe.

Consider the case of a man who seduces a betrothed woman and sleeps with her, which is essentially adultery if it was consensual.....

Rape has to be dealt with in the larger picture. Committing them to marry insures the known paternity of the children in a patrilineal society.

Notice that this is not a case of letting the exception establish the rule, because the reason you have given for the punishment, if it is sound, must bring about punishment wherever that reason exists, and it exists in the second scenario outlined above.

I have expanded my rationale in line with Wright, and I would still argue that is an exception establishing a rule which is improper. There are plenty of examples in Scripture of principles which in certain cases may be violated.

v.8 The nakedness of your father’s wife you must not uncover – it is your father’s nakedness.This is a sexual sin like adultery, and here we have not just the prohibition, but also the rationale. The rationale for what makes this wrong is that the woman in question here "belongs" to another man. her nakedness is his, and to intrude on that violates the one flesh union established witht he first man and woman. I think that is what makes adultery wrong, and that this is what brings the punishment about.

I agree that is part of it, but I still maintain that it is the specific cultural context that makes the punishment a capital offense.

Theonomy has become associated with the view that the moral law and its civil application are binding. So even if I were to accept what you are saying, it would not reduce Theonomy to a trivial claim like "whatever still applies today, applies today and it should be reflected in our laws." Your claim, after all, is that the maximum penalty for adultery is not an application of the moral law, it is comething "ceremoinial" as it were, something that exists simply as a pre-Messianic safeguard. But nobody would think that all punishments in the Torah amount to this, so if I accepted your claim, I could in fact maintain that it is compatible with Theonomy.

Perhaps but not with what has become the popular (if that word can be used) expression of it with capital punishment for adultery and homosexuality its best known features. The crux of my argument is that many of the punishments might indeed be legitimately tied to Israel's specific role in redemptive history, and I am just not sure we can discern this with a reasonable degree of certainty which is why we have to look to the New Testament. We see the moral law affirmed, but not necessarily the punishments for it.

PS: I didn't characterize the reduction as "trivial" - stating that the moral precepts of God should be codified in our laws is not a trivial matter, and shouldn't even be controversial, though unfortunately, it is.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 25th 2006, 10:16 PM

I think the main thing I would say is that there has to be an epistemological basis in Scripture for what you're saying. I agree that in a patrilineal society it is important to know who the father is (a caveat needs to be added here by saying that I am not sure that blood and genetics enters into it as much as the father in sociological terms - in other words I think an adopted family member counts as a regular one as far as lineage is concerned, possibly at least). But there may be patrilineal societies today as well. Since we're no longer talking about any messianic connection, do you think those societies would be justified in having a stiff penalty for adultery - up to and including death - but we would not? And is there actually a Scriptural warrant (it need not be explicit and detailed)) for the view that the death penalty was only possible in the case of adultery because of this social concern for the preservation of the patrilineal purity? (and since you think it's the broader principle being protected and not the messianic line, there can be no appeal tot he possible corruption of Messiah's line).

Rape has to be dealt with in the larger picture. Committing them to marry insures the known paternity of the children in a patrilineal society.My point is that in the case I cited, marriage was not required, the death penalty was. This is the case of a betrothed woman, and in each case - rape and consensual - the line can be corrupted, but this does not lead to her execution in both cases. This means that the fact of a corrupted line in and of itself is not what generates the punishment, but rather the other sin of taking what belongs to another man, as I noted in Leviticus.
I agree that is part of it, but I still maintain that it is the specific cultural context that makes the punishment a capital offense.Well, I think there's a clear Scriptural warrant for this part, and I am not currently able to see a scriptural warrant for the claim that lineage issues served as the basis for the death penalty in the case of adultery.
Perhaps but not with what has become the popular (if that word can be used) expression of it with capital punishment for adultery and homosexuality its best known features. The crux of my argument is that many of the punishments might indeed be legitimately tied to Israel's specific role in redemptive history, and I am just not sure we can discern this with a reasonable degree of certainty which is why we have to look to the New Testament. We see the moral law affirmed, but not necessarily the punishments for it.Absence of affirmation is not evidence of abrogation. We don't depend on the NT telling us what laws continue, rather we may be informed by the NT that particular laws served a certain function and need not be applied the same way today. Moreover, Capital punishment for adultery and sodomy are only the best known features of theonomy because many opponents of theonomy like to simply state those two laws as though any morally well-grounded person would immediately se how repugnant they are.

The theonomists themselves, however, have always sought to make it clear that if any law can be shown to serve only a typological or ceremonial funtion in some way, it need not be construed as a required application of the moral law.

PS: I didn't characterize the reduction as "trivial" - stating that the moral precepts of God should be codified in our laws is not a trivial matter, and shouldn't even be controversial, though unfortunately, it is.No, the claim that "the laws that continue, continue" is a trivial principle is my claim. I think it is trivial - not because it deals with trivial affairs, but becaus eit is trvially true, e.g. "God is God."

dizzle

March 25th 2006, 10:32 PM

I think the main thing I would say is that there has to be an epistemological basis in Scripture for what you're saying. I agree that in a patrilineal society it is important to know who the father is (a caveat needs to be added here by saying that I am not sure that blood and genetics enters into it as much as the father in sociological terms - in other words I think an adopted family member counts as a regular one as far as lineage is concerned, possibly at least).

but not a bastard

But there may be patrilineal societies today as well. Since we're no longer talking about any messianic connection, do you think those societies would be justified in having a stiff penalty for adultery - up to and including death - but we would not?

I expanded my reasoning Theonomy, I did not abandon it. Thus any comment that the Messianic connection is out the window is not relevant as I did not throw it there. As far as your second question, I don't know. More detail for the purpose and relevance of the patrilineal issues would be required.

And is there actually a Scriptural warrant (it need not be explicit and detailed)) for the view that the death penalty was only possible in the case of adultery because of this social concern for the preservation of the patrilineal purity? (and since you think it's the broader principle being protected and not the messianic line, there can be no appeal tot he possible corruption of Messiah's line).

See above, and again my prior post, which stated that setting a societal overal atmosphere can serve the purpose of preservation of the messianic line by enforcing the behaviour across the Board. Today's society and laws privilege marriage because it is heterosexuals that produce children and it is to our benefit to stabilize those relations. It matters not that childless couples also benefit because the greater goal is still preserved even if other situations reap the benefit (or detriment) and fostering a society-wide atmosphere of privileging marriage across the board serves that goal. I think you are being reductionist in this issue.

My point is that in the case I cited, marriage was not required, the death penalty was. This is the case of a betrothed woman, and in each case - rape and consensual - the line can be corrupted, but this does not lead to her execution in both cases. This means that the fact of a corrupted line in and of itself is not what generates the punishment, but rather the other sin of taking what belongs to another man, as I noted in Leviticus.

It is an exception proving the rule however. And in such cases it is known that the woman is violated and there would be knowledge then of any bastard offspring. Secret adultery is what is being highly discouraged.

Well, I think there's a clear Scriptural warrant for this part, and I am not currently able to see a scriptural warrant for the claim that lineage issues served as the basis for the death penalty in the case of adultery.
Absence of affirmation is not evidence of abrogation.

No but I don't think there is a case for prima facie continuation. And I do think there is in fact evidence of abrogation - there are multiple instances wherein sexual sins are detailed and capital punishment is not mentioned.

We don't depend on the NT telling us what laws continue, rather we may be informed by the NT that particular laws served a certain function and need not be applied the same way today. Moreover, Capital punishment for adultery and sodomy are only the best known features of theonomy because many opponents of theonomy like to simply state those two laws as though any morally well-grounded person would immediately se how repugnant they are.

They might be most well known because they are made infamous, but the popularizers hold them steadfastly.

The theonomists themselves, however, have always sought to make it clear that if any law can be shown to serve only a typological or ceremonial funtion in some way, it need not be construed as a required application of the moral law.

I am not sure we can do that with reasonable certainty in these cases - it is pushing aside the complete cultural and societal difference IMHO.

No, the claim that "the laws that continue, continue" is a trivial principle is my claim. I think it is trivial - not because it deals with trivial affairs, but becaus eit is trvially true, e.g. "God is God."

I was taking trivial in its other meaning, but I don't think it is trivial in the sense you are stating either - the bit about "it should be part of our laws" is not of that cloth.

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 25th 2006, 11:21 PM

but not a bastardWhy not? A child not born to the father of the family is the issue for you - since that would upset patrinlineal descent. if you would accept an adopted child, doesn;t that pose a problem? But if it does not, why not a child born because of rape who was accepted by the father of the family?
I expanded my reasoning Theonomy, I did not abandon it. Thus any comment that the Messianic connection is out the window is not relevant as I did not throw it there.So is the lineage of messiah one of the reasons for the stiffness of the penalty or not? My position is that the lineage of Messiah was preserved by the providence of God, as even the Torah allows bastards to be born, provided the mother is innocent.

So do you think that patrilineal societies today could justifiably have the death penalty for adultery? If not, then it seems your messianic consideration is doing the lion's share of the work.
See above, and again my prior post, which stated that setting a societal overal atmosphere can serve the purpose of preservation of the messianic line by enforcing the behaviour across the Board.But there is a class of cases where the linage is not protected, namely rape victims. This isn't a one-off, it is a normative law governing all those in this class. Since the corruption of the line is the same here as in cases where the woman is put to death, the corruption of the lineage cannot be the thing that makes the penalty apply. On the other, hand, there is explicit biblical proof that having someone elses spouse is morally evil, and there aren't any exceptions.

And even if you don't buy that counter example, your argument here is not sound. You appear to be arguing - if the above is meant to be an argument:

1) If adultery was punished across the board then it would protect Messiah's line.
2) Consequently the reason for the degree of punishment was that it would protect Messiah's line.

But this is not cogent, there's no reason to think that because some penalty would have the effect of preserving messiah's line by dissauding people from committing adultery, then that is the reason the penalty was so high.

Today's society and laws privilege marriage because it is heterosexuals that produce children and it is to our benefit to stabilize those relations. It matters not that childless couples also benefit because the greater goal is still preserved even if other situations reap the benefit (or detriment) and fostering a society-wide atmosphere of privileging marriage across the board serves that goal. I think you are being reductionist in this issue.And I think you're begging the question by assuming that the connection is a causal one in the biblical case just as it is in this modern law. Let's say we do privilege heterosexual marriage because it produces children, and this also benefits some childless couples (although incidentially this is not the reason we privilege heterosexual marriage). Who says there is an analogy between the two? There is only such an analogy if the penalty for adultery existed because adultery might corrupt Messiah's line, but that's the disputed claim. It might be true, but why should I think it is?
No but I don't think there is a case for prima facie continuation. And I do think there is in fact evidence of abrogation - there are multiple instances wherein sexual sins are detailed and capital punishment is not mentioned.Perhaps we can discuss those some time. I do think there is a prima facie case for continuity.
They might be most well known because they are made infamous, but the popularizers hold them steadfastly.My point is that your claim is not incompatible with even that popular kind of theonomy, because those populizers believe - in principle - that if you can make a case that the penalty in this instance is not moral but ceremonial in the sense you are suggesting, then theonomy might not entail the death penalty for adultery. It's just that they don't believe the argument has been made. Although Gary North is one who is clearly a Theonomist of the popular breed, he disagrees with bahnsen and others on many aspects of the divorce and marriage laws that remain in force, so it's not like being a Theonomist commits one to all the same concludions as Bahnsen. I disagree with him myself on some issues.
I am not sure we can do that with reasonable certainty in these cases - it is pushing aside the complete cultural and societal difference IMHO.Well, let'sjust ask you in principle: If we could do it with clarity, would you accept the practice of doing so?